Rinehart v Welker (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Rinehart v Welker (No 3)
Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 228
Hearing Date(s): 13 January 2012
Decision Date: 30 July 2012
Jurisdiction:
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];  Beazley JA at [25]; McColl JA [26]
Decision:

The applicants pay the costs of the respondents and the media interests in respect of the motions filed by the applicants on 6 January 2012 and 9 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.]

Catchwords:

COSTS - costs of interlocutory applications - general rule that costs follow the event

COSTS - whether costs payable forthwith

Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 s 7
Supreme Court Act 1970 s 46
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 42.7
Cases Cited: Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 432; (2002) 55 NSWLR 1
Hamod v State of New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 707
Royal Australian Naval Reserve Rifle Club Inc v NSW Rifle Association Inc [2010] NSWSC 351
Texts Cited:
Category: Costs
Parties: Gina Hope Rinehart (First Applicant)
Ginia Hope Francis Rinehart (Second Applicant)
Hope Rinehart Welker (First Respondent)
John Langley Hancock (Second Respondent)
Bianca Hope Rinehart (Third Respondent)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Media Interests)
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Media Interests)
Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Media Interests)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
M Walton SC and P Kulevski (First Applicant)
M Holmes QC and M Allars (Second Applicant)
A S Bell SC and D F C Thomas (First, Second and Third Respondents)
A T S Dawson and F T Roughley (Media Interests)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (First Applicant)
Gadens Lawyers (Second Applicant)
Johnson Winter & Slattery (First, Second and Third Respondents)
Addisons Lawyers (Media Interests)
File number(s): CA 2011/344306; 2011/344307
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before: Bathurst CJ, McColl JA, Young JA
- Date of Decision: 31 October 2011
- Citation: Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403
- Court File Number(s) CA 2011/344306; 2011/344307
Publication Restriction: None

JUDGMENT

  1. BATHURST CJ: By proceedings commenced on 5 September 2011 the respondents (the plaintiff beneficiaries) sought orders removing Mrs Gina Rinehart as trustee of a trust constituted by deed dated 27 December 1988, and varying the trust deed. Ms Ginia Rinehart was a beneficiary under that trust but joined with Mrs Gina Rinehart in opposing the relief sought.

  2. Mrs Gina Rinehart and Ms Ginia Rinehart (the applicants) sought a stay of these proceedings relying on an arbitration provision in a deed of settlement entered into between the parties in August 2006. In addition, the applicants sought various orders under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rinehart v Welker (No 3) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] NSWCA 228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Rinehart v Welker (No 3)*, the applicants sought orders from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales concerning the costs of interlocutory applications. The respondents and media interests were also parties to these proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants should be ordered to pay the costs of the respondents and media interests in relation to specific motions filed by the applicants on 6 January 2012 and 9 January 2012. The Court was required to consider the general rule that costs follow the event in interlocutory applications.

The Court applied the general rule that costs follow the event, finding that the applicants should bear the costs of the interlocutory motions they had filed. The Court's reasoning was based on the established principle that the unsuccessful party in an application typically pays the costs of the successful party.

The Court ordered that the applicants pay the costs of the respondents and the media interests in respect of the motions filed by the applicants on 6 January 2012 and 9 January 2012.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicants pay the costs of the respondents and the media interests in respect of the motions filed by the applicants on 6 January 2012 and 9 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.