Welker & Ors v Rinehart & Anor (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 1471

Welker & Ors v Rinehart & Anor (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 1471

The application to suspend the timetable for pleadings was dismissed because the arguments advanced by the defendants did not establish legal prejudice or any substantial reason for delay; the need for pleadings would persist in any event, appellate rights were not jeopardised, and the matters argued did not warrant an adjournment pending appeal.

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
16 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding / Interlocutory Application – Application to Suspend Pleading Timetable Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleaded Timetable, Stay of Proceedings, Suppression Orders, Mediation and Arbitration
Practice and Procedure Pleaded Timetable Stay of Proceedings Suppression Orders Mediation and Arbitration

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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

Equity Proceeding / Interlocutory Application – Application to Suspend Pleading Timetable Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the operation of the pleading timetable should be suspended pending the outcome of the defendants' appeal against the refusal of a stay
  2. 2 Whether requiring the defendants to plead would cause legal prejudice
  3. 3 Whether pleading timetable should be affected by status of suppression order

Ratio Decidendi

The application to suspend the timetable for pleadings was dismissed because the arguments advanced by the defendants did not establish legal prejudice or any substantial reason for delay; the need for pleadings would persist in any event, appellate rights were not jeopardised, and the matters argued did not warrant an adjournment pending appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Time for filing and service of defences for the first and second defendants extended to forty-nine days after service of the plaintiffs' verified statement of claim
  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of the application