Legal Research
Cases
Rinehart v Welker

Rinehart v Welker

Case [2011] NSWCA 345 31 October 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Rinehart v Welker and Ors

Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWCA 345

Hearing Date(s): 31 October 2011

Decision Date: 31 October 2011

Jurisdiction:

Before:
Tobias AJA

Decision:
1. Pursuant to s.7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (Act), and on the grounds referred to in s 8(1)(a), a suppression order is made prohibiting the disclosure by publication or otherwise of any information as to the relief claimed or any pleading, the Summary of Argument, submissions, the draft Notice of Appeal, evidence or argument filed, read or given in these proceedings, and including the contents of the red book, blue book, black book and orange book but not including the Summons seeking Leave to Appeal or the pronounced or published judgment of Tobias AJA.
2. Pursuant to s.12 of the Act, the suppression order in paragraph 1 above operates until determination of the Applicant's application for leave to appeal is determined or until further order of the Court.
3. Pursuant to s.11 of the Act, the suppression order in paragraph 1 above applies throughout the Commonwealth.
4. That appeal number 2011/344306 and appeal 2011/344307 be heard at the same time.
5. That the application for leave to appeal be determined concurrently with the appeal.
6. The hearing for leave to appeal with the hearing of the appeal be expedited.
[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.]

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE - Suppression orders - Discretion.

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) ss 6, 8, 9

Cases Cited:
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and Another v District Court of New South Wales and Others [2004] NSWCA 324; (2004) 61 NSWLR 344

Texts Cited:

Category: Procedural and other rulings

Parties:
2011/344306:
applicant: Gina Hope RINEHART
first respondent: Hope Rinehart WELKER
second respondent: John Langley HANCOCK
third respondent: Bianca Hope RINEHART
fourth respondent: Ginia Hope Frances RINEHART
2011/344307:
applicant: Ginia Hope Frances RINEHART
first respondent: Hope Rinehart WELKER
second respondent: John Langley HANCOCK
third respondent: Bianca Hope RINEHART
fourth respondent: Gina Hope RINEHART
Media Intervenor: Australian Broadcasting Commission; Fairfax Media Publications; Nine Network; Nationwide News

Representation

- Counsel:
Gina Hope Rinehart (applicant 2011/344306; fourth respondent 2011/344307): B A Coles QC/ P Kulevski
Hope Rinehart Welker (first respondent both matters); John Langley Hancock (second respondent both matters); Bianca Hope Rinehart (third respondent both matters): A S Bell SC/ D F C Thomas
Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (applicant 2011/344307; fourth respondent 2011/344306): F Kunc SC/ Mr Flynn
Media Intervenor Australian Broadcasting Commission; Fairfax Media Publications; Nine Network; Nationwide News: A T S Dawson

- Solicitors:
Gina Hope Rinehart (applicant 2011/344306; fourth…

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 345
Case: [2011] NSWCA 345
Decision Date: 31 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings involved Gina Rinehart and a party identified as Welker. The dispute concerned an application for leave to appeal and the substantive appeal itself, heard concurrently. The court was required to determine whether to grant a suppression order under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).

The central legal issue was the exercise of the court's discretion to make a suppression order. This involved considering the grounds for such an order as specified in section 8(1)(a) of the Act. The court also had to determine the scope, duration, and geographical reach of any suppression order made.

Tobias AJA, applying the provisions of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), made a suppression order. This order prohibited the publication of information relating to the relief claimed, pleadings, summary of argument, submissions, draft notice of appeal, evidence, and the contents of specific documents referred to as the red book, blue book, black book, and orange book. The order explicitly excluded the Summons seeking Leave to Appeal and the judgment itself. The suppression order was made on the grounds specified in section 8(1)(a) of the Act and was to remain in effect until the determination of the application for leave to appeal or further order, applying throughout the Commonwealth. The court also ordered that two related appeal numbers be heard concurrently, that the application for leave to appeal be determined concurrently with the appeal, and that these hearings be expedited.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s.7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (Act), and on the grounds referred to in s 8(1)(a), a suppression order is made prohibiting the disclosure by publication or otherwise of any information as to the relief claimed or any pleading, the Summary of Argument, submissions, the draft Notice of Appeal, evidence or argument filed, read or given in these proceedings, and including the contents of the red book, blue book, black book and orange book but not including the Summons seeking Leave to Appeal or the pronounced or published judgment of Tobias AJA.

2. Pursuant to s.12 of the Act, the suppression order in paragraph 1 above operates until determination of the Applicant's application for leave to appeal is determined or until further order of the Court.

3. Pursuant to s.11 of the Act, the suppression order in paragraph 1 above applies throughout the Commonwealth.

4. That appeal number 2011/344306 and appeal 2011/344307 be heard at the same time.

5. That the application for leave to appeal be determined concurrently with the appeal.

6. The hearing for leave to appeal with the hearing of the appeal be expedited.

[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

AGLC Citation

Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345

Most Recent Citation

Rinehart v Rinehart (No 3) [2016] FCA 539

Cases citing this decision · 12 of 12 shown

R v Walker (No 1 - Suppression and related orders)
[2025] NSWSC 298 Para 17

…other primary objectives of the administration of justice, or may well be, which should be taken into account: Rinehart v Welker and Ors [2011] NSWCA 345 at [38].…
In the matter of Neil Robert Cussen as liquidator Total Hoarding Supplies Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
[2019] NSWSC 887 Para 19

…I have regard, in that respect, to the approach adopted by Tobias AJA in Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345, recognising that in some circumstances parties must be entitled to agree confidentiality among themselves, and I adopted a similar approach in Re Idoport Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] NSWSC 1423. I am satisfied th…
Erceg v Erceg
[2016] NZSC 135 Para 9

…remained to be determined.[35] [32] Welker v Rinehart [2011] NSWSC 1094. [33] Welker v Rinehart (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1238. [34] Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345. [35] Rinehart , above n 29.…
Rinehart v Rinehart (No 3)
[2016] FCA 539

…cock [2013] NSWCA 326 Rinehart v Rinehart [2014] FCA 1241; (2014) 320 ALR 195 Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345 Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403 Rinehart v Welker [2012] NSWCA 95 Robotunits Pty Ltd v Mennel [2015] VSC 268; (2015) 297 FLR 300 Roussel-Uclaf v GD Searle & Co Ltd (No 2) [1978] FSR 95; [1978] 1 Lloyd…
Lejmanoski v The University of Western Australia
[2013] FMCA 75 Para 4

…Appeal did not consider the High Court’s judgment in Hogan , the judgments in Welker & Ors v Rinehart [2011] NSWSC 1094 and Rinehart v Welker & Ors [2011] NSWCA 345 referred to by Counsel for Associate Professor Lejmanoski are not of assistance to the Court.…
Rinehart v Welker (No 3)
[2012] NSWCA 228 Para 5

…of Appeal. On 31 October 2011 Tobias AJA made certain suppression orders, generally in the terms sought by the applicants: Rinehart v Welker and Ors [2011] NSWCA 345.…
R v Watcharaporn Nantahkhum
[2012] ACTSC 55 Para 10

…As Tobias AJA said in Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345 at [41], the administration of justice is a “multi-faceted concept”.…
Rinehart v Welker
[2012] NSWCA 1 Para 1

…Senior counsel for the second applicant also suggested that the Court had failed to recognise that the judgment of Tobias AJA ( Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345) was a discretionary judgment reviewable presumably only in accordance with the principles set out in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499. This submission…
Welker v Rinehart (No 4)
[2011] NSWSC 1636 Para 1

…or leave to appeal. Tobias AJA made such an order on 31 October 2011, substantially to the same effect as the order I had made [see Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345]. The plaintiffs applied for a review of his Honour's order and, on 19 December 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld the review application and set aside…
Rinehart v Welker
[2011] NSWCA 425

…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…
Rinehart v Welker
[2011] NSWCA 403

…Rinehart v Welker and Ors [2011] NSWCA 345…
Welker v Rinehart (No 3)
[2011] NSWSC 1471 Para 1

…ication Orders Act 2010, s 7, in substantially the same terms as the interim suppression order made by me on 7 October 2011 [ Rinehart v Welker & Ors [2011] NSWCA 345]. A review of that suppression order has been sought by the media interests, and is listed for hearing in the Court of Appeal some time in early Dece…

View all 12 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 3 of 3 shown

Welker v Rinehart (No 2)
[2011] NSWSC 1238 Para 4

…bound by this order. I shall refer to his Honour's reasons for the making of this order as the second judgment: Welker & Ors v Rinehart & Anor (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1238.…
Welker v Rinehart
[2011] NSWSC 1094 Para 2

…he Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act). On 13 September 2011, his Honour delivered judgment Welker & Ors v Rinehart [2011] NSWSC 1094 (the first judgment) pursuant to which he made such an order upon the grounds referred to in s 8(1)(a) and s 8(1)(e) of the Act (the first suppressio…
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of New South Wales
[2004] NSWCA 324 Para 10

…argument I was referred to the decision of this Court in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and Another v District Court of New South Wales and Others [2004] NSWCA 324; (2004) 61 NSWLR 344 and, in particular, to those paragraphs of the judgment of the Chief Justice, with whom Handley JA and MW Campbell AJA agreed, w…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
11, 6, 8, 9, 9(4) 6 mentions (from Para 2)

Case Title:	Rinehart v Welker and Ors
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2011] NSWCA 345
Hearing Date(s):	31 October 2011
Decision Date:	31 October 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:	Tobias AJA
Decision:	1. Pursuant to s.7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (Act), and on the grounds referred to in s 8(1)(a), a suppression order is made prohibiting the disclosure by publication or otherwise of any information as to the relief claimed or any pleading, the Summary of Argument, submissions, the draft Notice of Appeal, evidence or argument filed, read or given in these proceedings, and including the contents of the red book, blue book, black book and orange book but not including the Summons seeking Leave to Appeal or the pronounced or published judgment of Tobias AJA. 2. Pursuant to s.12 of the Act, the suppression order in paragraph 1 above operates until determination of the Applicant's application for leave to appeal is determined or until further order of the Court. 3. Pursuant to s.11 of the Act, the suppression order in paragraph 1 above applies throughout the Commonwealth. 4. That appeal number 2011/344306 and appeal 2011/344307 be heard at the same time. 5. That the application for leave to appeal be determined concurrently with the appeal. 6. The hearing for leave to appeal with the hearing of the appeal be expedited. [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.]
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - Suppression orders - Discretion.
Legislation Cited:	Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) ss 6, 8, 9
Cases Cited:	John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and Another v District Court of New South Wales and Others [2004] NSWCA 324; (2004) 61 NSWLR 344
Texts Cited:
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	2011/344306: applicant: Gina Hope RINEHART first respondent: Hope Rinehart WELKER second respondent: John Langley HANCOCK third respondent: Bianca Hope RINEHART fourth respondent: Ginia Hope Frances RINEHART 2011/344307: applicant: Ginia Hope Frances RINEHART first respondent: Hope Rinehart WELKER second respondent: John Langley HANCOCK third respondent: Bianca Hope RINEHART fourth respondent: Gina Hope RINEHART Media Intervenor: Australian Broadcasting Commission; Fairfax Media Publications; Nine Network; Nationwide News
Representation
- Counsel:	Gina Hope Rinehart (applicant 2011/344306; fourth respondent 2011/344307): B A Coles QC/ P Kulevski Hope Rinehart Welker (first respondent both matters); John Langley Hancock (second respondent both matters); Bianca Hope Rinehart (third respondent both matters): A S Bell SC/ D F C Thomas Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (applicant 2011/344307; fourth respondent 2011/344306): F Kunc SC/ Mr Flynn Media Intervenor Australian Broadcasting Commission; Fairfax Media Publications; Nine Network; Nationwide News: A T S Dawson
- Solicitors:	Gina Hope Rinehart (applicant 2011/344306; fourth…