Rinehart v Rinehart (No 2)

The case of Rinehart v Rinehart (No 2) involved a dispute between Gina Rinehart and her former spouse, John Rinehart, concerning their marital assets. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate division of the assets. The legal issues before the court were whether costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis, and whether costs should be paid forthwith. Additionally, the court considered whether it should refer the matter to mediation on its own motion.

The court examined the principle that costs generally follow the event, meaning that the losing party is typically responsible for the costs of the proceedings. However, the court also noted that there are circumstances where costs may be ordered on an indemnity basis, where the winning party is entitled to recover costs from the losing party that exceed the normal scale. The court held that in this case, the appropriate approach was to order costs on a party/party basis, rather than an indemnity basis. The court found that while the proceedings were complex and protracted, there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an indemnity order. Regarding the payment of costs forthwith, the court determined that it was not appropriate to order immediate payment of costs, as it would not be fair and just in the circumstances.

Furthermore, the court considered the possibility of referring the matter to mediation on its own motion. The court found that it was not appropriate to do so, as the parties had already engaged in mediation and had indicated that they did not wish to pursue it further. The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to compel the parties to participate in mediation against their wishes.

In conclusion, the court ordered that costs be paid on a party/party basis, and that there would be no order for costs to be paid forthwith. The court also declined to refer the matter to mediation on its own motion. The final orders reflected the court's determination of the legal issues and the unique circumstances of the case.