Hancock v Rinehart [2014] NSWSC 932

Hancock v Rinehart [2014] NSWSC 932

The tender was rejected principally because it was made at a very late stage, involved voluminous highly confidential documents not provided to the plaintiffs' representatives, and it would be unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to deal with it then. The asserted positive uses were unnecessary because one fact was not in dispute and the Services and Co-Mingling Deed was already in evidence, while the remaining negative purpose was of only the slightest significance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Evidence Tender / During Proceedings When Evidence Was Practically Closed and the Court Was About to Embark on Submissions
Outcome
Tender rejected
Legal Topics
['admissibility and Relevancy' 'tender of Documents' 'confidential Commercial Documents' 'contractual Construction' 'lateness of Evidence']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility and Relevancy' 'tender of Documents' 'confidential Commercial Documents' 'contractual Construction' 'lateness of Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Evidence Tender / During Proceedings When Evidence Was Practically Closed and the Court Was About to Embark on Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether highly confidential transactional documents could be tendered to assist arguments about construction of clause 13.3 of the Hope Downs Joint Venture Agreement.' 'Whether the tender was relevant or necessary where one asserted fact was not in dispute and the Services and Co-Mingling Deed was already in evidence.' 'Whether the lateness and confidentiality of the voluminous tender made it unreasonable to require the plaintiffs to deal with it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender was rejected principally because it was made at a very late stage, involved voluminous highly confidential documents not provided to the plaintiffs' representatives, and it would be unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to deal with it then. The asserted positive uses were unnecessary because one fact was not in dispute and the Services and Co-Mingling Deed was already in evidence, while the remaining negative purpose was of only the slightest significance.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected

Orders

  • ['Tender rejected']