Hancock v Rinehart (Costs) [2016] NSWSC 11

Hancock v Rinehart (Costs) [2016] NSWSC 11

Except as otherwise provided by existing orders, Mrs Rinehart (first defendant) is to pay two-thirds of the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, assessed on the ordinary basis, and is not to be indemnified from trust assets in respect of either those costs or her own costs. She is only liable to indemnity costs for that proportion of the plaintiffs’ costs relating to HPPL’s abandoned objections to Bianca. The 2006 amendments issue was a discrete, severable issue on which the plaintiffs failed and they should therefore bear the defendants’ costs of that issue, but Mrs Rinehart's broader responsibility and the plaintiffs’ overall success justify the two-thirds apportionment set off....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Equity Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs partly in plaintiffs' favour—first defendant to pay two-thirds of plaintiffs' costs; no indemnity from trust assets; interest payable on costs; some issues apportioned to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'trustee’s Indemnity' 'interest on Costs' 'party/party and Indemnity Costs']
['equity' 'trusts' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'trustee’s Indemnity' 'interest on Costs' 'party/party and Indemnity Costs']

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

Costs Application Following Equity Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['How to apportion costs between parties where plaintiffs succeed on some issues but fail on others' 'Whether costs of specific issues (the 2006 amendments issue) should be borne by plaintiffs or defendants' 'Whether indemnity costs are appropriate against the first defendant (Mrs Rinehart) and from the trust estate' 'Whether interest is payable on the costs under s 101(4) Civil Procedure Act 2005']

Ratio Decidendi

Except as otherwise provided by existing orders, Mrs Rinehart (first defendant) is to pay two-thirds of the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, assessed on the ordinary basis, and is not to be indemnified from trust assets in respect of either those costs or her own costs. She is only liable to indemnity costs for that proportion of the plaintiffs’ costs relating to HPPL’s abandoned objections to Bianca. The 2006 amendments issue was a discrete, severable issue on which the plaintiffs failed and they should therefore bear the defendants’ costs of that issue, but Mrs Rinehart's broader responsibility and the plaintiffs’ overall success justify the two-thirds apportionment set off....

Court Disposition

Costs partly in plaintiffs' favour—first defendant to pay two-thirds of plaintiffs' costs; no indemnity from trust assets; interest payable on costs; some issues apportioned to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ["Except insofar as any extant costs order otherwise provides, the first defendant (Mrs Rinehart) is to pay two-thirds of the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, assessed on the ordinary basis, and not to be entitled to indemnity from the trust assets in respect of those costs or her own costs of the proceedings."...