Rinehart v Hancock [2013] NSWCA 326

Rinehart v Hancock [2013] NSWCA 326

Leave to appeal was refused because neither proposed contention was reasonably arguable. The definition of "Claim" in the Deed used "claim" in the sense of an assertion or demand made, so the applicants' contention that claims concerning the 2006 Amendments had been released had no reasonable prospects of success and did not constitute a dispute under the Deed. Further, even if the plaintiffs' claims concerning the trustee breached clause 7(a), that breach would not necessarily foreclose those claims or determine the 2006 Amendments claims in favour of the defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Decision Refusing a Stay of Equity Division Proceedings and Referral to Mediation and Arbitration / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'referral to Arbitration' 'construction of Deed' 'arbitration Clause' 'releases' 'undertakings' 'leave to Appeal' 'trustee Appointment']
['arbitration' 'civil Procedure' 'equity' 'contract Law' 'trusts'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'referral to Arbitration' 'construction of Deed' 'arbitration Clause' 'releases' 'undertakings' 'leave to Appeal' 'trustee Appointment']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Decision Refusing a Stay of Equity Division Proceedings and Referral to Mediation and Arbitration / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether claims in the Equity proceedings relating to the 2006 Amendments to the Constitution of HPPL were reasonably arguably foreclosed by releases in clause 6 of the Hope Downs Deed so that their outcome was governed or controlled by the Deed.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were arguably prevented by the undertaking in clause 7(a) of the Deed from seeking the appointment of Mr Bruce Carter as an independent trustee of the trust.' 'Whether the definition of "Claim" in clause 1.1 of the Deed used "claim" to mean a claim or demand asserted, or a right or cause of action.' "Whether any breach of the undertaking in clause 7(a) would necessarily determine the plaintiffs' claims concerning the trustee or the 2006 Amendments in favour of the defendants."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because neither proposed contention was reasonably arguable. The definition of "Claim" in the Deed used "claim" in the sense of an assertion or demand made, so the applicants' contention that claims concerning the 2006 Amendments had been released had no reasonable prospects of success and did not constitute a dispute under the Deed. Further, even if the plaintiffs' claims concerning the trustee breached clause 7(a), that breach would not necessarily foreclose those claims or determine the 2006 Amendments claims in favour of the defendants.

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.']