Welker v Rinehart (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 839

Welker v Rinehart (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 839

The notice substantially complied with UCPR r 21.10 as the Defence directly alluded to the PwC advice, and the short notice period for production was reasonable in the context of the single document sought. Use of the incorrect form did not invalidate the notice, and objections to form and time were not originally taken. Thus, the application to set aside paragraph 3 of the Notice was declined.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Hope Rinehart Welker; Second Plaintiff: John Langley Hancock; Third Plaintiff: Bianca Hope Rinehart; First Defendant: Gina Hope Rinehart; Second Defendant: Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Motion Seeking to Set Aside Paragraphs of Notice to Produce / Interlocutory Application/ruling on Notice to Produce
Outcome
Application to set aside paragraph 3 of Notice to Produce refused; production of document ordered
Legal Topics
Notice to Produce Documents, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 21.10, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 21.11, Production of Documents, Defect in Form and Substantial Compliance, Reasonableness of Production Time
Civil Procedure Notice to Produce Documents Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 21.10 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 21.11 Production of Documents Defect in Form and Substantial Compliance Reasonableness of Production Time

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hope Rinehart Welker

First Plaintiff

John Langley Hancock

Second Plaintiff

Bianca Hope Rinehart

Third Plaintiff

Gina Hope Rinehart

First Defendant

Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion Seeking to Set Aside Paragraphs of Notice to Produce / Interlocutory Application/ruling on Notice to Produce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Notice to Produce was valid despite being in incorrect form
  2. 2 Whether there was a direct allusion to the document in pleadings as required by UCPR r 21.10
  3. 3 Whether the time for production was reasonable under UCPR r 21.11

Ratio Decidendi

The notice substantially complied with UCPR r 21.10 as the Defence directly alluded to the PwC advice, and the short notice period for production was reasonable in the context of the single document sought. Use of the incorrect form did not invalidate the notice, and objections to form and time were not originally taken. Thus, the application to set aside paragraph 3 of the Notice was declined.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside paragraph 3 of Notice to Produce refused; production of document ordered

Orders

  • Order that the First Defendant produce to the Court on 12 September 2012 the document referred to in paragraph 3 of the Plaintiffs' Notice to Produce dated 7 May 2012
  • Order that by 1 August 2012 the First Defendant serve on the Plaintiffs a copy of the said document