Legal Research
Cases
Rinehart v Welker

Rinehart v Welker

Case [2011] NSWCA 425 21 December 2011

Stay of Proceedings

Costs

Civil Procedure

Type to search within this case.

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 425
Hearing dates: 19 December 2011
Decision date: 21 December 2011
Before: Beazley JA
Decision:
Stay order (1) made on 19 December 2011 up to and including 13 January 2012.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 130
Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasterners (Aust) Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 24; 145 ALR 121
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1996] HCA 3; 134 ALR 460
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 81 ALJR 1107
Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; 240 CLR 651
International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL [2011] NSWCA 186
Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (No 1) [1986] HCA 84; 161 CLR 681
John Fairfax and Sons Limited v Kelly (No 2) (1987) 8 NSWLR 510
Miller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 261
Minister for Local Government & Anor v South Sydney City Council (No 3) [2002] NSWCA 327
Palmer v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2009) VSCA 164
Saleh v Romanous [2010] NSWCA 373
Sibuse Pty Limited v Shaw (No 2) (1988) 13 NSWLR 125
White v State Bank of NSW [2002] NSWCA 408
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd, Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Applicants - First Set)
Hope Rinehart Welker, John Langley Hancock, Bianca Hope Rinehart (Applicants - Second Set)
Gina Hope Rinehart (First Opponent)
Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (Second Opponent)
Representation: A T S Dawson (Applicants - First Set)
Dr A S Bell SC; D F C Thomas (Applicants - Second Set)
B A Coles QC (First Opponent)
F Kunc SC (Second Opponent)
Addisons (Applicants - First Set)
Johnson Winter & Slattery (Applicants - Second Set)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (First Opponent)
Gadens Lawyers (Second Opponent)

File Number(s): CA 2011/344306; 2011/344307
Decision under appeal

Citation:

Rinehart v Welker and Ors [2011] NSWCA 345

Date of Decision:

2011-10-31 00:00:00

Before:

Tobias AJA

File Number(s):

CA 2011/344306; 2011/344307

Judgment

HER HONOUR : There are two applications before the Court, brought by Gina Hope Rinehart and Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart respectively, in which each seeks an order in identical terms that the order of the Court of Appeal made on 19 December 2011 (the Order) be stayed until 16 January 2012 and if, on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rinehart v Welker

Details

AGLC: Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 425
Case: [2011] NSWCA 425
Decision Date: 21 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved were Rinehart and Welker. The dispute concerned an application to set aside a default judgment. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the primary judge erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment entered against the applicant. This involved considering the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing their defence and the merits of their defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment. The Court held that the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay and had demonstrated a meritorious defence. The principles applied included those relating to the setting aside of default judgments, which require a party to show a good defence on the merits and a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing their defence.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the default judgment be set aside and that the applicant be granted leave to file a defence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Stay order (1) made on 19 December 2011 up to and including 13 January 2012.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

115

AGLC Citation

Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 425

Most Recent Citation

CWO Pty Ltd v Muswellbrook Shire Council (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 115

Cases citing this decision · 50 of 98 shown

Seek Justice Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains Local Planning Panel/Blue Mountains City Council; Seek Justice Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning
[2025] NSWCA 201 Para 2

…ected person: [41]-[43]. Petrou v Vassiliadis [2025] NSWCA 174; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQHH (2012) 200 FCR 223; [2012] FCAFC 45; Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403, applied. De L v Director-General of Community Services [No 2] (1997) 190 CLR 207; [1997] HCA 14, referred to.…
Farley v Mkr Capital Pty Ltd
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1340 Para 27

…FCR 377 ( Country Care ) at [8]-[9] the Full Court stated: [8]Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s…
Kean v Sky Channel Pty Ltd
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1171 Para 8

…ed as follows at [8]-[9] (Allsop CJ, Wigney and Abraham JJ): 8Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s…
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott (No 4)
[2025] NSWCA 152 Para 28

…y burden that a person seeking a s 46(4) review has to discharge in order to have a Judge of Appeal’s order set aside: see without being exhaustive Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [48]; Kiri Te Kanawa v Leading Edge Events Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 274 at [14]; Lo v Iverarch [2009] NSWCA 92…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Young (No 3)
[2025] VSC 423 Para 6

…(2023) 414 ALR 635, 651-652 [48] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Jagot JJ). See also R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592, 615.3 (Brennan J). [17]See fn 13 above; Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311, 326 [54] (Bathurst CJ and McColl JA); PQR v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation (No 1) (2017) 53 VR 45, 74-75 [72] (B…
Dincer v Amazon Support Services Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC2G 906 Para 12

…t the evidence proffered by the respondents did not support the making of suppression or non-publication orders. He stressed in that regard, citing Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311, The Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth DPP and Commonwealth of Australia v De Pyle [2024] FCAFC 43, that such orders should only b…
B3S2 Pty Ltd as Trustee for the B & S D'Avoine Enduring Family Superannuation Fund v Australian Public Custodian Limited (in liq)
[2025] FCA 573 Para 4

…n orders under s 37AF of the FCA Act are fairly well settled. Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Murray
[2025] VSC 275 Para 5

…(2023) 414 ALR 635, 651-652 [48] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Jagot JJ). See also R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592, 615.3 (Brennan J). [29]See fn 25 above; Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311, 326 [54] (Bathurst CJ and McColl JA); PQR v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation (No 1) (2017) 53 VR 45, 74-75 [72] (B…
Purcell (Examiner) v LAZ24 (No 2)
[2025] FCA 498 Para 6

…ression or non-publication orders under s 37AF of the Act: [8]Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s…
State of New South Wales v Liddington (No 1) (Media Application)
[2025] NSWSC 461

…nd accurate reporting of proceedings: John Fairfax Pty Limited v District Court of New South Wales (2004) 61 NSWLR 344; [2004] NSWCA 324 at 353 [20]; Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at 321 [33]. It has been said that the media are “the eyes and ears of the general public” , not all of whom can atten…
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Peever
[2025] FCA 460 Para 9

…The New South Wales Court of Appeal described the principle in Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 40 at [32] as follows: 32… The principle of open justice is one of the most fundamental aspects of the system of justice in Australia: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of New South Wales at […
Koulouris v Sourasis (Confidentiality Application)
[2025] FCA 452 Para 7

…n orders under s 37AF of the FCA Act are fairly well settled. Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s…
Lambourne v Baker (No 6)
[2025] NSWCA 45 Para 25

…[19] and also noting at [45] that “there is a heavy burden on a person seeking a s 46(4) review of a decision of an appellate judge” (citing Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [48]).…
Richards (a pseudonym) v Jones (a pseudonym) (No 2)
[2025] NSWSC 27 Para 16

…e proper administration of justice. In making that submission, the plaintiffs acknowledge that the word “necessary” is a strong one, referring to Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [31] per Bathurst CJ and McColl JA. They note however that “necessary” should not be given a narrow construction: see F…
Clean Energy Regulator v Emerging Energy Solutions Group Pty Ltd
[2024] FCA 1310 Para 9

…pport the exercise of any inherent or implied power of a court to suppress or prohibit the publication of those matters”: Ogawa at [27]; see also Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at [54] (Bathurst CJ and McColl JA), referring to R v Legal Aid Board; ex parte Kaim Todner (a firm) [1999] QB 966 at 978 (Lord Wolf MR for…
CWO Pty Ltd v Muswellbrook Shire Council (No 2)
[2024] NSWLEC 115 Para 55

…b)). The legislative intention behind the regime of the CSPO Act is that suppression orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances (see Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at [27] (per Bathurst CJ and McColl JA)), where such orders are deemed relevantly “necessary” (see Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand…
EFG v General Counsel, Department of Communities and Justice
[2024] NSWSC 1373 Para 14

…language of s 8 of the Act makes clear. What is necessary in the statutory context is given a narrow meaning, as Bathurst CJ and McColl J observed in Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [31]:…
Wither and Wither & Anor
[2024] FCWA 244

…gh threshold and means something more than convenient, reasonable or sensible: see Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (supra) at 664,667 and Rinehart v Welker (2011) NSWCA 403 at [27]-[31]. It is not a balancing exercise: Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (supra) 664 at [31]; •The term "necessary" is not to be given a r…
Lambourne v Baker (No 5)
[2024] NSWCA 241 Para 45

…re cited). Further, it has been recognised that there is a heavy burden on a person seeking a s 46(4) review of a decision of an appellate judge (see Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [48]).…
Smolin v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd
[2024] NSWDC 433 Para 43

…of the principle of open justice: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of New South Wales (2004) 61 NSWLR 344 at [20] per Spigelman CJ; Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at 321 [33] per Bathurst CJ and McColl JA.…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith
[2024] HCA 32 Para 11

…5 NSWLR 465 at 476-477; Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v McGregor SM (2004) 14 NTLR 24 at 30-31 [19]; Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 at 534 [26]; Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at 320-321 [27]-[31]; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Karas (2011) 83 ATR 879 at 881 [4].…
Young v Accenture Australia Pty Limited
[2024] FCA 1013 Para 29

…orders under s 37AF of the FCA Act are fairly well settled. 8Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 ( Rinehart v Welker ) at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195 ( Rinehart v Rinehart ) at [23]. That is both because the operativ…
Eco-Pact Pty Ltd v The Law Society of NSW
[2024] NSWCA 206 Para 50

…ication itself, it is important at the outset to emphasise that the power under s 46(4) is recognised as imposing a heavy burden on an applicant (see Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [48]; Collier v Lancer [2013] NSWCA 185 at [20]). What must be established is that there has been a material error…
State of New South Wales v Kay
[2024] NSWSC 993 Para 97

…It has also been observed in Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [31] (per Bathurst CJ and McColl JA), that:…
Atkinson v Jeffery
[2024] NSWCA 149 Para 6

…hat this Court be satisfied that the relevant decision was “plainly wrong” ( Wentworth v Wentworth (1994) 35 NSWLR 726 at 731 (Mahoney JA); Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [48]; Singh v Singh [2017] NSWCA 15 at [23]).…
Santos WA Energy Ltd v Darren Whittaker
[2024] FWCFB 231

…“Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s 37AG(1)(a) is “necessary” and because the court must take in…
R v Fakhreddine
[2024] NSWSC 320

…“[25] In Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403, the Court made clear that s 6 of the Act records and confirms that in deciding whether to make, inter alia, a non-publication order the Court must take into account that “a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interes…
[Redacted] v Commissioner of Taxation
[2024] FCA 185 Para 18

…Similarly, in Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at [32], Bathurst CJ and McColl JA relevantly stated: … in general parties have to accept the embarrassment and damage to their reputation, and the possibility of consequential loss, which may be inherent in being involved in litigation. It is the price of open justice th…
Warren v Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia
[2023] FCA 1337 Para 9

…77 at [8]-[9] (Allsop CJ, Wigney and Abraham JJ): Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 ( Rinehart v Welker ) at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195 ( Rinehart v Rinehart ) at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s…
State of New South Wales v Ayoub
[2023] NSWSC 1122 Para 14

…ion of s 6, the word “necessary” imposes a high threshold to be met before the important principle of open justice can be intruded upon. In Rinehart v Welker (2011) 1993 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403, at [27]-[29], Bathurst CJ and McColl JA said:…
Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner
[2023] FCA 1096 Para 4

…sised the need to consider a primary objective of the Court, being the need safeguard the public interest in open justice: at [8], citing Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [32] and Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [25].…
Lighthouse Corporation Limited v Republica Democratica de Timor Leste (No 4)
[2023] VSC 363 Para 1

…result.[34] The principal question to be addressed is whether the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice.[35] [34] Rinehart v Welker (2011) NSWLR 311, [31], [54]-[55]. [35] Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651, 666 [38]-[39].…
Mentha v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2023] FCA 667 Para 11

…In Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311, Bathurst CJ and McColl JA addressed the concept of the administration of justice as follows (at 39, emphasis added): The concept of the administration of justice is multifaceted. We doubt whether a single statement can capture the connotation it carries in a range of contexts. As Y…
Islam v Australian Real Estate Relations Pty Ltd
[2023] NSWCA 131 Para 42

…with whom Beazley P, as her Excellency then was, and Simpson JA agreed) and it is recognised that there is a heavy burden on such an application (see Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [48] per Bathurst CJ and McColl JA).…
NSW Police Force v Alameddine (No. 2)
[2023] NSWSC 633 Para 17

…– a requirement that “reinforces the legislative intention that … [suppression] orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances”: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27] (Bathurst CJ and McColl JA) (‘ Rinehart '). It is not sufficient that suppression or non-publication of the information “w…
De Pyle v Commonwealth of Australia
[2023] FCA 597 Para 15

…n orders under s 37AF of the FCA Act are fairly well settled. Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSW LR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in…
In the matter of the application of TSK (a pseudonym)
[2023] NSWSC 494

…Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 Joukhador as principle solicitor of Thomas Booler Lawyers v NSW Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWSC 1287 Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 R v Legal Aid Board, ex parte Kaim Todner (the firm) [1999] QB 966 Category: Procedural rulings Part…
Application of Connelly; The Estate of Nancy Allwood Connelly
[2023] NSWSC 467 Para 75

…Such a power conferred is not discretionary: Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (a pseudonym) at [218]; Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [48] per Bathurst CJ and McColl JA.…
O'Dell (a pseudonym) v The King
[2023] NSWCCA 46 Para 6

…of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice”: s 6 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act . As was noted in Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27], that provision “reinforces the legislative intention that [orders under the Act] should only be made in exceptional…
Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [No 16]
[2022] WASC 432 Para 4

…cannot by agreement cloak their prior dealings in secrecy and shield them from the normal processes of the administration of justice.[111] [111] See Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 [42], [45], [49] ‑ [51] (Bathurst CJ & McColl JA).…
R v Abdaly; R v Hosseinishoja (No 5)
[2022] NSWSC 1657 Para 5

…344; [2004] NSWCA 324, Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651 at 664; [2010] HCA 21 (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Kiefel JJ), Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at 320-321; [2011] NSWCA 403 (Bathurst CJ and McColl JA), Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand v Ibrahim (2012) 263 FCR 211; [2012]…
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Lee
[2022] FCA 1307 Para 15

…n impending criminal jury trial (emphasis in original): [8] Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195; [2014] FCA 1241 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s 3…
Edwards v The Queen (No 1)
[2022] NSWSC 1343 Para 5

…v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651; [2010] HCA 21 at [30] per French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Kiefel JJ; Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]).…
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.)
[2022] FCA 1062 Para 6

…rders under s 37AF of the FCA Act are fairly well settled. 8Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 ( Rinehart v Welker ) at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195 ( Rinehart v Rinehart ) at [23]. That is both because the operative…
MJ v the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
[2022] FedCFamC2G 671 Para 3

…l settled.”[2] At [8] – [9], the Full Court stated: [8] Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195 at [23]. That is both because the operative word in s 37AG(1)(a) is “necessary” and because th…
The Epoch Holding Group Pty Ltd v Carrodus
[2022] FCA 947 Para 10

…orders under s 37AF of the FCA Act are fairly well settled. 8Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 ( Rinehart v Welker ) at [27]; Rinehart v Rinehart (2014) 320 ALR 195 ( Rinehart v Rinehart ) at [23]. That is both because the operativ…
Hancock v Rinehart
[2022] NSWSC 1025 Para 25

…ceptional circumstances, given that the principle of open justice is one of the most fundamental aspects of the system of justice in Australia: Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27] and [32].…
Iqbal v Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd
[2022] NSWCA 121 Para 3

…2004] NSWCA 136 at [4] per the Court (Beazley, Santow and Ipp JJA); Patrick v Howorth [2002] NSWCA 285). Further, it has been recognised (as noted in Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [48] per Bathurst CJ and McColl JA) that there is a heavy burden to be discharged by a person seeking a s 46(4) rev…
In the matter of ORIX Australia Corporation Limited
[2022] NSWSC 577 Para 41

…This description of the open justice principle was embraced by Bathurst CJ and McColl JA in Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 (at [29]). Their Honours went on to say (at [32]-[34]):…
R v Dawson
[2022] NSWSC 555 Para 11

…rgument, could not therefore be “necessary”, even if it were highly desirable: see generally with respect to the meaning of “necessary” Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 at [27]-[31], in particular at [31] as follows:…

View all 98 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

Rinehart v Welker
[2011] NSWCA 403 Para 1

…The Order was made in Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403 and discharged orders made by Tobias AJA on 31 October 2011 under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, s 7, s 11 and s 12. I will refer to the Court's decision as the Review judgment.…
Rinehart v Welker
[2011] NSWCA 345

…irst Opponent) Gadens Lawyers (Second Opponent) File Number(s): CA 2011/344306; 2011/344307 Decision under appeal Citation: Rinehart v Welker and Ors [2011] NSWCA 345 Date of Decision: 2011-10-31 00:00:00 Before: Tobias AJA File Number(s): CA 2011/344306; 2011/344307…
International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL
[2011] NSWCA 186 Para 1

…2) (1987) 8 NSWLR 510, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 130; and International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL [2011] NSWCA 186.…
Saleh v Romanous
[2010] NSWCA 373 Para 1

…sions were White v State Bank of NSW [2002] NSWCA 408 per Giles JA; Miller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 261 per McColl JA; Saleh v Romanous [2010] NSWCA 373.…
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission
[2010] HCA 21 Para 1

…roper administration of justice was a clear indication that the Parliament was not dealing with trivialities: see Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; 240 CLR 651 at [30]. Their Honours also considered that s 6 of the Act reinforced the legislative intention that orders made under the Act should on…
Palmer v Permanent Custodians Ltd
[2009] VSCA 164 Para 1

…nsel for the Media interests also submitted to the Court that there is a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal, Palmer v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2009] VSCA 164, which applied the same test as the High Court applied when determining whether to grant a stay pending the determination of a special leave applicat…
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak
[2009] NSWCA 130 Para 1

…a high one, relying upon statements made in John Fairfax and Sons Limited v Kelly (No 2) (1987) 8 NSWLR 510, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 130; and International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL [2011] NSWCA 186.…
Miller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWCA 261 Para 1

…was submitted, ought not be followed. Those decisions were White v State Bank of NSW [2002] NSWCA 408 per Giles JA; Miller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 261 per McColl JA; Saleh v Romanous [2010] NSWCA 373.…
Hearne v Street
[2008] HCA 36 Para 1

…them to the law of defamation and may put them in breach of their implied obligation to the Court in accordance with the principle in Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36.…
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd
[2007] HCA 22 Para 1

…of a special leave application. The Media interests contended that in accordance with the principles in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 81 ALJR 1107, this Court should follow the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal.…
Minister for Local Government v South Sydney City Council (No 3)
[2002] NSWCA 327 Para 1

…Finally, I should refer to M inister for Local Government & Anor v South Sydney City Council (No 3) [2002] NSWCA 327. There, Spigelman CJ appears to adopt the test propounded by Brennan J in Burgundy Royale : see at [10]. However, in Miller v Nationwide News McColl JA observed, at [25], that it did not appear that…
Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd
[1997] HCA 24

…t Act 1970 Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 130 Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasterners (Aust) Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 24; 145 ALR 121 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1996] HCA 3; 134 ALR 460 Farah Co…
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
[1996] HCA 3 Para 1

…urts in some jurisdictions of Australia is less stringent than the test applied by the High Court itself: see Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1996] HCA 3; 134 ALR 460 at 463 per Kirby J.…
Sibuse Pty Limited v Shaw
[1988] HCATrans 166 Para 1

…erved, at [25], that it did not appear that the Sibuse line of authority had been referred to the Chief Justice: see Sibuse Pty Limited v Shaw (No 2) (1988) 13 NSWLR 125. McColl JA noted that Sibuse affirmed a less stringent test that that propounded in the High Court.…
Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd
[1986] HCA 84 Para 1

…rmination of a special leave application. That test was stated by Brennan J in Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (No 1) [1986] HCA 84; 161 CLR 681, especially at 684-685:…
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish
[1980] FCA 40 Para 1

…public interest that the court should endeavour to achieve effectively the object for which it was appointed to do justice between the parties ": see Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129.…
White v State Bank of NSW
[2002] NSWCA 408 Para 1

…not accord with the principle in Burgundy Royale , and which, it was submitted, ought not be followed. Those decisions were White v State Bank of NSW [2002] NSWCA 408 per Giles JA; Miller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 261 per McColl JA; Saleh v Romanous [2010] NSWCA 373.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
7 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
46 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Defamation Act 2005 (TAS)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 425
Hearing dates:	19 December 2011
Decision date:	21 December 2011
Before:	Beazley JA
Decision:	Stay order (1) made on 19 December 2011 up to and including 13 January 2012. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Legislation Cited:	Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited:	Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 130 Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasterners (Aust) Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 24; 145 ALR 121 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1996] HCA 3; 134 ALR 460 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 81 ALJR 1107 Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36 Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; 240 CLR 651 International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL [2011] NSWCA 186 Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (No 1) [1986] HCA 84; 161 CLR 681 John Fairfax and Sons Limited v Kelly (No 2) (1987) 8 NSWLR 510 Miller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 261 Minister for Local Government & Anor v South Sydney City Council (No 3) [2002] NSWCA 327 Palmer v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2009) VSCA 164 Saleh v Romanous [2010] NSWCA 373 Sibuse Pty Limited v Shaw (No 2) (1988) 13 NSWLR 125 White v State Bank of NSW [2002] NSWCA 408
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd, Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Applicants - First Set) Hope Rinehart Welker, John Langley Hancock, Bianca Hope Rinehart (Applicants - Second Set) Gina Hope Rinehart (First Opponent) Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (Second Opponent)
Representation:	A T S Dawson (Applicants - First Set) Dr A S Bell SC; D F C Thomas (Applicants - Second Set) B A Coles QC (First Opponent) F Kunc SC (Second Opponent) Addisons (Applicants - First Set) Johnson Winter & Slattery (Applicants - Second Set) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (First Opponent) Gadens Lawyers (Second Opponent)
File Number(s):	CA 2011/344306; 2011/344307
Decision under appeal	Citation: Rinehart v Welker and Ors [2011] NSWCA 345 Date of Decision: 2011-10-31 00:00:00 Before: Tobias AJA File Number(s): CA 2011/344306; 2011/344307