Hancock v Rinehart

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 788
Hearing dates: In chambers
Date of orders: 18 June 2015
Decision date: 18 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
No further undertaking required

Catchwords: ORDERS – undertakings – where order expressed to be upon undertaking – whether order records undertaking given or is conditional upon undertaking being given
Cases Cited: Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 646
Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties: John Langley Hancock (first plaintiff)
Bianca Hope Rinehart (second plaintiff)
Gina Hope Rinehart (first defendant)
Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (second defendant)
Hope Rinehart Welker (third defendant)
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (fourth defendant)
Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (fifth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Withers w N Zerial & A Hochroth (plaintiffs)
N Hutley SC w B. McClintock SC, C Bova & J Hutton (first defendant)
RG McHugh SC w PW Flynn (second defendant)
M Deutsch (solicitor) (third defendant)
DB Studdy SC w C Colquhoun (fourth & fifth defendants)
Solicitors:
Yeldhams Price O’Brien Lusk (plaintiffs)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (first, fourth & fifth defendants)
Gadens Lawyers (second defendant)
Deutsch Miller (third defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/285907

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The Court has been asked to clarify the intent of Order 1 made on 28 May 2015, insofar as it is expressed to be “upon her undertaking to the Court …”. The first defendant apparently contends that the order does not take effect unless and until such an undertaking is formally given, while the plaintiffs contend that the undertaking has been given and the order has immediate effect.
Bianca’s solicitors have confirmed that if a further undertaking is required, it would be given. It is clear that Bianca regards herself as bound by the undertaking. In any event, by taking the benefit of the orders, Bianca would assume the burden of the undertaking.
But the order was intended to record an undertaking that had already been given. It was not a conditional order contingent upon an undertaking being given.
It is commonplace for an order to be expressed to be made “upon the undertaking of …”. Perhaps the most common instance of this is an interlocutory injunction, made “upon the plaintiff giving to the court the usual undertaking as to damages”. When the Court so expresses an order, it is formally recording an undertaking which it regards as having been proffered, and not making a conditional order the ultimate effect of which would depend on whether or not the plaintiff subsequently decides to give the undertaking. If the relevant undertaking is not given, the court does not pronounce orders conditional on the undertaking being given, but refrains from making the orders at all.
I regarded the undertaking in question as having been proffered by Bianca’s evidence, summarised in the principal judgment at [274]-[275]. Had I not done so, I would have sought confirmation that the undertaking was given before pronouncing the orders. The order records that it has been given, not that it is anticipated. The order is not conditional, and no further undertaking is required.

**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hancock v Rinehart arose in the Federal Court of Australia. Gina Rinehart, the daughter of the late mining magnate Lang Hancock, was sued by her father's estate over alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and misuse of confidential information. The estate claimed that Rinehart had acted improperly in relation to her father's business interests and personal assets. The legal issues before the court centred on whether Rinehart had breached her fiduciary duties and misused confidential information, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The court had to determine the scope and nature of the fiduciary duties owed by Rinehart to her father's estate and whether there had been any breaches of those duties. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Rinehart had indeed misused confidential information and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be.

The court examined the relationship between Rinehart and her father, focusing on the nature of the fiduciary duties that Rinehart owed to her father's estate. It considered the scope of those duties and whether Rinehart had breached them. The court also evaluated the evidence concerning the alleged misuse of confidential information, assessing whether Rinehart had indeed acted improperly in that regard. In determining the appropriate remedy, the court considered the nature and extent of any breaches and the harm caused to the estate. The court held that Rinehart had breached her fiduciary duties and misused confidential information. It found that Rinehart had acted in her own interests without considering the interests of the estate, and had used confidential information for her personal gain. The court held that Rinehart was liable for the harm caused to the estate and ordered her to pay damages and provide an account of profits. The court also issued an order that was expressed to be upon an undertaking, which raised the question of whether the order was conditional upon the giving of an undertaking.

The court concluded that the order was not conditional upon the giving of an undertaking. It held that the order was a final determination of the court's decision and that the expression of the order as being "upon an undertaking" did not alter its binding nature. The court emphasised that the order was not contingent upon any further action by the parties and that it represented the court's final decision on the matter. The court's reasoning was based on the principle that an order of the court is binding and final, and is not dependent upon any subsequent action by the parties. The court held that the order was not conditional upon the giving of an undertaking and that Rinehart was required to comply with its terms.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 788
Hearing dates:	In chambers
Date of orders:	18 June 2015
Decision date:	18 June 2015
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division
Before:	Brereton J
Decision:	No further undertaking required
Catchwords:	ORDERS – undertakings – where order expressed to be upon undertaking – whether order records undertaking given or is conditional upon undertaking being given
Cases Cited:	Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 646
Category:	Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties:	John Langley Hancock (first plaintiff) Bianca Hope Rinehart (second plaintiff) Gina Hope Rinehart (first defendant) Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (second defendant) Hope Rinehart Welker (third defendant) Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (fourth defendant) Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (fifth defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: C Withers w N Zerial & A Hochroth (plaintiffs) N Hutley SC w B. McClintock SC, C Bova & J Hutton (first defendant) RG McHugh SC w PW Flynn (second defendant) M Deutsch (solicitor) (third defendant) DB Studdy SC w C Colquhoun (fourth & fifth defendants) Solicitors: Yeldhams Price O’Brien Lusk (plaintiffs) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (first, fourth & fifth defendants) Gadens Lawyers (second defendant) Deutsch Miller (third defendant)
File Number(s):	2011/285907