Rinehart v Rinehart (No 2) [2015] FCA 339

Rinehart v Rinehart (No 2) [2015] FCA 339

Discovery should be ordered only to the extent necessary to facilitate just resolution of the stay and arbitration referral applications and must not defeat a substantive right to seek referral to arbitration. Applicants are entitled to discovery regarding categories of documents linked to whether the alleged arbitration agreements are null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, but not broader categories unrelated to necessary determination of those issues.

Parties
First Applicant: Bianca Hope Rinehart; Second Applicant: John Langley Hancock; First Respondent: Georgina Hope Rinehart (in her personal capacity, as Trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust and as Trustee of the HFMF Trust); Second Respondent: Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (ACN 008 676 417); Third Respondent: Hancock Minerals Pty Ltd (ACN 057 326 824); Fourth Respondent: Hancock Family Memorial Foundation Ltd (ACN 008 499 312); Fifth Respondent: Tadeusz Josef Watroba; Sixth Respondent: Westraint Resources Pty Ltd (ACN 009 083 783); Seventh Respondent: HMHT Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 070 550 104); Eighth Respondent: 150 Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 070 550 159); Ninth Respondent: Hope Rinehart Welker; Tenth Respondent: Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart; Eleventh Respondent: Max Christopher Donnelly (in his capacity as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the late Langley George Hancock); Twelfth Respondent: Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (ACN 071 514 308); Thirteenth Respondent: Roy Hill Iron Ore Pty Ltd (ACN 123 722 038); Fourteenth Respondent: Mulga Downs Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 132 484 050); Fifteenth Respondent: Mulga Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (ACN 080 659 150)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Discovery / Interlocutory; Before Determination of Stay and Referral to Arbitration Applications
Outcome
application for discovery granted in part
Legal Topics
Discovery, Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Agreements, Enforceability of Deeds, Fiduciary Duties, Presumption of Undue Influence, Duress, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct
Practice and Procedure Arbitration Equity and Trusts Discovery Stay of Proceedings Arbitration Agreements Enforceability of Deeds Fiduciary Duties +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bianca Hope Rinehart

First Applicant

John Langley Hancock

Second Applicant

Georgina Hope Rinehart (in her personal capacity, as Trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust and as Trustee of the HFMF Trust)

First Respondent

Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (ACN 008 676 417)

Second Respondent

Hancock Minerals Pty Ltd (ACN 057 326 824)

Third Respondent

Hancock Family Memorial Foundation Ltd (ACN 008 499 312)

Fourth Respondent

Tadeusz Josef Watroba

Fifth Respondent

Westraint Resources Pty Ltd (ACN 009 083 783)

Sixth Respondent

HMHT Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 070 550 104)

Seventh Respondent

150 Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 070 550 159)

Eighth Respondent

Hope Rinehart Welker

Ninth Respondent

Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart

Tenth Respondent

Max Christopher Donnelly (in his capacity as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the late Langley George Hancock)

Eleventh Respondent

Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (ACN 071 514 308)

Twelfth Respondent

Roy Hill Iron Ore Pty Ltd (ACN 123 722 038)

Thirteenth Respondent

Mulga Downs Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 132 484 050)

Fourteenth Respondent

Mulga Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (ACN 080 659 150)

Fifteenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Discovery / Interlocutory; Before Determination of Stay and Referral to Arbitration Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discovery should be ordered before determination of applications to stay proceedings and refer to arbitration under s 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) and Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA)
  2. 2 Whether documents sought are necessary to resolve issues about whether arbitration agreements are null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed
  3. 3 Whether applicants require discovery to prove the enforceability or invalidity of settlement deeds containing arbitration agreements

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery should be ordered only to the extent necessary to facilitate just resolution of the stay and arbitration referral applications and must not defeat a substantive right to seek referral to arbitration. Applicants are entitled to discovery regarding categories of documents linked to whether the alleged arbitration agreements are null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, but not broader categories unrelated to necessary determination of those issues.

Court Disposition

application for discovery granted in part

Orders

  • The first and the second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth respondents must provide verified discovery of specified categories of documents within seven days, particularly pre-identified documents relating to communications about the alleged arbitration agreements and relevant board...
  • Liberty to apply on 48 hours' notice.