Welker & Ors v Rinehart & Anor (No 6) [2012] NSWSC 160

Welker & Ors v Rinehart & Anor (No 6) [2012] NSWSC 160

The application for a non-publication order was dismissed because, in the absence of admissible expert evidence, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that such an order was necessary to protect the safety of any person as required by s 8(1)(c) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). Even if the expert reports were admissible, the evidence did not establish the requisite necessity given the existing public profile of the parties and lack of demonstrated imminent threat.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Hope Rinehart Welker; Second Plaintiff: John Langely Hancock; Third Plaintiff: Bianca Hope Rinehart; First Defendant: Gina Hope Rinehart; Second Defendant: Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart; Media Interests: Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Media Interests: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Media Interests: Nationwide News Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Non Publication Order
Outcome
Application for non-publication order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Publication Orders, Suppression Orders, Anshun Estoppel, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Open Justice
Civil Procedure Evidence Non Publication Orders Suppression Orders Anshun Estoppel Expert Evidence Admissibility Open Justice

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hope Rinehart Welker

First Plaintiff

John Langely Hancock

Second Plaintiff

Bianca Hope Rinehart

Third Plaintiff

Gina Hope Rinehart

First Defendant

Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart

Second Defendant

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Media Interests

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

Media Interests

Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Media Interests

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-publication order is necessary to protect the safety of any person under s 8(1)(c) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the application is precluded by Anshun estoppel or abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the three expert reports are admissible as opinion evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a non-publication order was dismissed because, in the absence of admissible expert evidence, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that such an order was necessary to protect the safety of any person as required by s 8(1)(c) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). Even if the expert reports were admissible, the evidence did not establish the requisite necessity given the existing public profile of the parties and lack of demonstrated imminent threat.

Court Disposition

Application for non-publication order dismissed.

Orders

  • The first defendant's notice of motion filed on 1 February 2012 is dismissed.
  • The first defendant pay the costs of the plaintiffs and the news media organisations.