Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 788

Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 788

Order 1 was intended to record an undertaking already given by Bianca, which the Court regarded as proffered by her evidence summarised in the principal judgment; it was not a conditional order contingent on a further formal undertaking being given.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders (other Than Costs) / In Chambers; Clarification of Order 1 Made on 28 May 2015
Outcome
No further undertaking required
Legal Topics
['orders' 'undertakings' 'conditional Orders']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['orders' 'undertakings' 'conditional 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

Consequential Orders (other Than Costs) / In Chambers; Clarification of Order 1 Made on 28 May 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 1 made on 28 May 2015, expressed to be "upon her undertaking to the Court", recorded an undertaking already given or was conditional upon a further undertaking being formally given.' 'Whether a further undertaking was required before the order took effect.']

Ratio Decidendi

Order 1 was intended to record an undertaking already given by Bianca, which the Court regarded as proffered by her evidence summarised in the principal judgment; it was not a conditional order contingent on a further formal undertaking being given.

Court Disposition

No further undertaking required

Orders

  • ['The order records that the undertaking has been given, not that it is anticipated.' 'The order is not conditional, and no further undertaking is required.']