Hancock v Rinehart [2014] NSWSC 860

Hancock v Rinehart [2014] NSWSC 860

The tendered material was admissible because, in the present stage concerning the fitness and appropriateness of competing proposals for a replacement trustee, the first defendant's past conduct was relevant to the issue whether she was likely to attempt to overbear an apparently independent trustee. That tendency was itself a relevant consideration within s 94(3), so Part 3.6 did not apply. The material was also relevant to the second plaintiff's response to an objection that she lacked impartiality, because she was entitled to prove the matters and facts on which she relied in deciding to take the course she did.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling on Evidence Admissibility / Further Argument and Reconsideration of Ruling on Plaintiffs' Tender of Documents
Outcome
Tender admissible
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'tendency Evidence' 'admissibility of Documents' 'replacement Trustee' 'independence of Trustee' 'breach of Trust']
['evidence' 'trusts' 'equity'] ['relevance' 'tendency Evidence' 'admissibility of Documents' 'replacement Trustee' 'independence of Trustee' 'breach of Trust']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling on Evidence Admissibility / Further Argument and Reconsideration of Ruling on Plaintiffs' Tender of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' tendered documents were admissible in the present part of the proceedings." "Whether evidence of the first defendant's past conduct was relevant to whether she was likely to attempt to overbear an apparently independent replacement trustee." 'Whether Part 3.6 of the Evidence Act applied where the plaintiffs sought to prove a tendency because the tendency itself was a relevant consideration.' 'Whether the second plaintiff was entitled to prove the matters and facts she relied on in taking action against the first defendant in response to an objection that she lacked impartiality.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tendered material was admissible because, in the present stage concerning the fitness and appropriateness of competing proposals for a replacement trustee, the first defendant's past conduct was relevant to the issue whether she was likely to attempt to overbear an apparently independent trustee. That tendency was itself a relevant consideration within s 94(3), so Part 3.6 did not apply. The material was also relevant to the second plaintiff's response to an objection that she lacked impartiality, because she was entitled to prove the matters and facts on which she relied in deciding to take the course she did.

Court Disposition

Tender admissible

Orders

  • ['The material the subject of the present tender is admissible.']