Rinehart v Welker (No 3) [2012] NSWCA 228

Rinehart v Welker (No 3) [2012] NSWCA 228

The applicants were not successful on the stay application determined on 13 January 2012, and their limited short stay did not amount to success warranting departure from the usual costs rule; nor did the importance of the issue or the reasonableness of seeking the stay justify refusing costs to the successful parties. The costs should not be ordered payable forthwith because the application was ancillary to stay proceedings that had been determined without any order for costs payable forthwith. The media interests were not entitled to costs of the applications before the primary judge because the applicants had been successful on those applications and Brereton J's orders were not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs of Interlocutory Applications / Court of Appeal Determination of Costs Following Motions Filed on 6 January 2012 and 9 January 2012 and Heard on 13 January 2012
Outcome
The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff beneficiaries and the media interests for the motions filed on 6 January 2012 and 9 January 2012; no order was made that those costs be payable forthwith, and no costs order was made in favour of the media interests for the applications before the primary...
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'general Rule That Costs Follow the Event' 'whether Costs Payable Forthwith' 'stay Pending Special Leave Application' 'suppression Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders'] ['costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'general Rule That Costs Follow the Event' 'whether Costs Payable Forthwith' 'stay Pending Special Leave Application' 'suppression Orders']

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 of Interlocutory Applications / Court of Appeal Determination of Costs Following Motions Filed on 6 January 2012 and 9 January 2012 and Heard on 13 January 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the plaintiff beneficiaries' and media interests' costs of the stay application determined on 13 January 2012." 'Whether those costs should be payable forthwith.' 'Whether the media interests should receive costs of applications before the primary judge concerning suppression orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were not successful on the stay application determined on 13 January 2012, and their limited short stay did not amount to success warranting departure from the usual costs rule; nor did the importance of the issue or the reasonableness of seeking the stay justify refusing costs to the successful parties. The costs should not be ordered payable forthwith because the application was ancillary to stay proceedings that had been determined without any order for costs payable forthwith. The media interests were not entitled to costs of the applications before the primary judge because the applicants had been successful on those applications and Brereton J's orders were not...

Court Disposition

The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff beneficiaries and the media interests for the motions filed on 6 January 2012 and 9 January 2012; no order was made that those costs be payable forthwith, and no costs order was made in favour of the media interests for the applications before the primary...

Orders

  • ['The applicants pay the costs of the plaintiff beneficiaries and the media interests in respect of the motions filed by the applicants on 6 January 2012 and 9 January 2012.']