Hancock v Rinehart [2013] NSWSC 1980

Hancock v Rinehart [2013] NSWSC 1980

The second defendant's proposal depended on newly named persons and structures involving a managing trustee, and the plaintiffs had not had a fair opportunity to investigate or contest those persons or the proposed managing trustee's relationship with HPPL or related entities. Because the proposal could not be considered at the hearing without injustice to the plaintiffs except by an unacceptable adjournment, leave to advance it was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Second Defendant's Application Regarding Replacement Trustee (t101)
Outcome
Leave to propose managing and custodial trustee under (WA) Trustees Act 1962 as replacement trustees refused.
Legal Topics
['appointment of Replacement Trustee' 'custodian Trustee and Managing Trustee Under (wa) Trustees Act 1962' 'procedural Fairness in Contesting Trustee Proposals' 'adjournment']
['trusts and Trustees' 'corporations'] ['appointment of Replacement Trustee' 'custodian Trustee and Managing Trustee Under (wa) Trustees Act 1962' 'procedural Fairness in Contesting Trustee Proposals' 'adjournment']

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

Interlocutory Application / Second Defendant's Application Regarding Replacement Trustee (t101)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second defendant should be permitted at the hearing to advance a proposal for appointment of a custodian trustee and managing trustee under the (WA) Trustees Act 1962 as replacement trustees.' 'Whether the proposal could be considered without injustice to the plaintiffs or an unacceptable adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant's proposal depended on newly named persons and structures involving a managing trustee, and the plaintiffs had not had a fair opportunity to investigate or contest those persons or the proposed managing trustee's relationship with HPPL or related entities. Because the proposal could not be considered at the hearing without injustice to the plaintiffs except by an unacceptable adjournment, leave to advance it was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to propose managing and custodial trustee under (WA) Trustees Act 1962 as replacement trustees refused.

Orders

  • ["The Court declined to permit the second defendant's proposal to be advanced at the hearing."]