Hancock v Rinehart [2013] NSWSC 1981

Hancock v Rinehart [2013] NSWSC 1981

The documents are relevant to the central issue of the first defendant's purpose and intent in relation to the 2006 amendments, and their late tender responds to arguments first raised recently, with no significant prejudice resulting from their admission.

Parties
First Plaintiff: John Langley Hancock; Second Plaintiff: Bianca Hope Rinehart; First Defendant: Gina Hope Rinehart; Second Defendant: Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart; Third Defendant: Hope Rinehart Welker; Fourth Defendant: Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Reopen Case to Tender Documents
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Leave to Reopen Case, Tendering Documents, Relevance of Evidence
Procedure Leave to Reopen Case Tendering Documents Relevance 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Langley Hancock

First Plaintiff

Bianca Hope Rinehart

Second Plaintiff

Gina Hope Rinehart

First Defendant

Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart

Second Defendant

Hope Rinehart Welker

Third Defendant

Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Reopen Case to Tender Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to reopen the case to tender further documents
  2. 2 Whether the documents are relevant to the first defendant's purpose in consenting to constitutional amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The documents are relevant to the central issue of the first defendant's purpose and intent in relation to the 2006 amendments, and their late tender responds to arguments first raised recently, with no significant prejudice resulting from their admission.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Tabs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 of 'Plaintiffs Tender Bundle Evidence in Reply' admitted as PX111, respectively as 111.2 to 111.10.
  • Other tabs to be removed and returned.