Rinehart v Rinehart

Rinehart v Rinehart - [2022] NSWCA 66 - NSWCA 2022 case summary — Zoe

[4]

HEADNOTE [This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment] In 2011, Ms Bianca Rinehart sued to remove Ms Gina Rinehart as trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust. In 2015, Gina resigned as trustee before the application to remove her could be determined. The Court made orders appointing Bianca as the new trustee, vesting in her the assets and property of the trust, and requiring all documents of the trust in Gina's possession, custody or power to be produced to Bianca within 28 days. By notice of motion filed 18 March 2020, Bianca sought production of two classes of documents in Gina's possession. Gina opposed production, contending that the documents were not "documents of the trust" and that Bianca's application was an abuse of process on the basis that she was seeking the documents to progress her personal claims in a pending arbitration. By way of fallback, Gina said that there should be no production until the conclusion of the arbitration, and that there should be dispensation from the requirement to produce the documents because doing so was likely to involve a breach of her duties as a director of Hope Prospecting Pty Ltd, shares in which were one of the assets of the trust. The primary judge rejected Gina's submissions that the documents were not "documents of the trust" and that the application was an abuse of process, but accepted both fallback positions. Her Honour ordered production of the documents but stayed those orders pending the conclusion of the arbitration. Bianca appealed, pursuant to leave, from the decision to stay the operation of the orders. The principal issues before the Court were: (1) Whether the stay was valid insofar as it was based upon the risk of misuse of the documents, and (2) Whether the stay was valid insofar as it was based upon the risk of breach of duty as a director. The Court (per Leeming JA, Gleeson JA and White JA agreeing) held, allowing the appeal: As to issue (1):

The risk of misuse of the documents by Bianca in her personal capacity in the arbitration was not a material consideration in the exercise of the discretion to stay the orders for production. The appropriate venue for any dispute regarding the misuse of the documents was the arbitration itself, which was fully apprised of the issues: at [65]-[73].
To the extent that Gina opposed production in order to prevent detriment to "the interests of the trust", those interests were nothing more nor less than the interests of the four beneficiaries of the trust, none of whom objected to the delivery of the documents to Bianca: at [65]-[73].
Insofar as the documents had previously been owned, or co-owned by Gina, they were now owned, or co-owned by Bianca, and the immediacy or otherwise of her need for them was irrelevant to a decision as to whether there should be a stay. Even if the documents had merely been used by Gina, there was no good reason to prevent her successor from enjoying access to them. In any case, Bianca did not know the contents of the documents and was in no position to make submissions as to whether there was an immediate need: at [74]-[76]. Discussion of: (a) the relevance of the ownership of the documents sought to be produced: at [51]-[64]. (b) the consequences of the former trustee not having distinguished documents possessed by her as trustee and in other capacities: at [21]-[27]. Hancock v Rinehart (Trust documents) [2018] NSWSC 1684 applied. As to issue (2):
It was no answer to the obligation to deliver trust documents to say that doing so might put Gina in breach of duties she owed in a different capacity. That simply gave rise to a further question, as to which obligation should prevail, the fiduciary obligation owed in her capacity as the former trustee or the duty owed in her capacity as director of a different company (which made no claim for a breach of duty by Gina). Discussion of: (a) the duty of co-operation owed by the former trustee to the successor trustee: at [30]-[35] In re Ogier Trustee (Jersey) Ltd [2006] JRC 158; In the matter of the Bird Charitable Trust and the Bird Purpose Trust (2012) (1) JLR 62; Hancock v Rinehart (Trust documents) [2018] NSWSC 1684; Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v ITG Ltd (Guernsey Royal Court, 30 January 2017); Lord Strathcona Steamship v Dominion Coal Co [1926] AC 108; White v Shortall (2006) 68 NSWLR 650; [2006] NSWSC 1379; Ellison v Sandini Pty Ltd (2018) 263 FCR 460; [2018] FCAFC 44 considered. (b) the discretion to relieve the former trustee of the obligation to deliver trust documents: at [36]-[39] In the matter of the Bird Charitable Trust and the Bird Purpose Trust (2012) (1) JLR 62; CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2005) 224 CLR 98; [2005] HCA 53 considered.

[5]

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with Leeming JA.
LEEMING JA: Ms Bianca Rinehart appeals pursuant to leave granted late last year by this Court from certain orders made in the Equity Division concerning her access to documents in the possession of her mother Ms Georgina Rinehart, known as Gina: Rinehart v Rinehart [2021] NSWCA 233 (Macfarlan and McCallum JJA). Leave to appeal from other parts of those orders was refused. I shall follow the approach adopted in most of the five appellate decisions arising directly or indirectly out of the orders to "deliver up to the second plaintiff [Bianca] within 28 days all documents of the trust in her possession" made in the previous six years and refer to Bianca and Gina by their given names.
What has already been said indicates that this litigation, between parties who possess considerable wealth and large appetites for litigation, has the capacity to expand beyond the limits mandated by s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Gina is under a duty to assist the court in its giving effect to the overriding purpose of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. Bianca is under the same duty. The highly skilled lawyers retained by mother and daughter are forbidden from causing their clients to breach those duties. I do not suggest that any breach has occurred. However, sight of that overriding purpose may be lost when litigation explodes in interlocutory appeal after interlocutory appeal. It is to be borne steadily in mind that Gina was replaced as trustee by Bianca many years ago, that the prima facie position is that the outgoing trustee must deliver to the new trustee all trust documents, and that much of the litigation over the last six years has been merely the working out of that obligation. The "real issues" in the proceedings commenced in 2011 by Bianca, insofar as the removal of Gina as trustee was their object, were long ago resolved. It is also to be borne in mind that the High Court said, referring to the overriding purpose in the Civil Procedure Act, that: "That purpose may require a more robust and proactive approach on the part of the courts. Unduly technical and costly disputes about non-essential issues are clearly to be avoided": Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303; [2013] HCA 46 at [57].
This appeal, concerning whether particular documents should be disclosed to the new trustee, it having been determined many years ago that the former trustee should retire, well fits the description of an unduly technical and costly dispute about non-essential issues. So too does the unfortunate dispute recorded by the primary judge at the outset of her reasons about the order in which motions should be heard, which doubtless contributed to her Honour's opening words: "This is yet another unedifying interlocutory application in the ongoing litigious saga between members of the Rinehart family".

[6]

Essential background

"Simplicity is a neglected legal virtue, perhaps because achieving it can be very hard". Those observations, made in a note in "Keeping Negligence Simple" (2022) 138 LQR 175 criticising aspects of the elaborate reasoning in Meadows v Khan [2021] UKSC 21; [2021] 3 WLR 147 on a straightforward negligence appeal, are equally apposite here. It is important not to lose sight of the simplicity of the basic issue dividing the former and current trustee by the complexity of the record.
The details of the lengthy procedural background may largely be deferred, although I shall return to aspects of them in due course to explain how errors have come about. All that matters is the following: 1. Gina was, until 2015, the trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust. Shares in the second respondent, Hope Prospecting Pty Ltd (HPPL), are one of the assets of that trust. Gina was at all material times a director of HPPL. 2. In 2011, Bianca and two of her siblings sued to remove Gina as trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust. "[T]he plaintiffs primarily claimed removal and replacement of Mrs Rinehart as trustee of the Trust - essentially on the ground that, in connection with giving consideration to the extension of its vesting date in September 2011, she so misconducted herself as to demonstrate unfitness to retain the office of trustee": Hancock v Rinehart [2015] NSWSC 646; 106 ACSR 207 at [38]. Such an application is not lightly acceded to. The authorities bearing upon this aspect of the court's supervisory jurisdiction over trustees were recently reviewed in St John's Trust Company (PVT) Ltd v Medlands (PTC) Ltd [2021] CA (Bda) 20 Civ at [47]-[58] (s 31 of the Bermudan Trustee Act 1925 is cognate with s 77 of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA) and s 70 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW)). They were also reviewed in Welker v Rinehart (No 10) [2012] NSWSC 1330 at [7]-[10], a decision in the same proceeding as that from which the present appeal has been brought, the name of which indicates the quantity of applications which were made in only the first year of this litigation. 3. It was recorded in 2015 that Gina "resigned in the face of proceedings to remove her for misconduct without having provided any account or explanation for the matters complained of against her resigning before the application to remove her was determined by a court": Hancock v Rinehart at [373]. 4. Order 1 made on 28 May 2015 appointed Bianca to the office of trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust. Order 2 made on the same date, made pursuant to s 78 of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA), was that "the assets and property of the Trust vest in the said Bianca Hope Rinehart as such trustee". (Jurisdiction to make that order was conferred, if not otherwise available, by s 4(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (WA).) 5. Order 3 made on the same date required Gina to produce "all documents of the Trust in her possession custody or power" within 28 days. Order 4 granted liberty to Gina to be relieved from order 3 in respect of any particular document or class of documents. These orders are ordinary consequences of the replacement of a trustee. In part they are unnecessary, because insofar as the former trustee owned documents in her capacity as trustee, the vesting order vests ownership of the documents in the new trustee. 6. The ensuing years have seen ongoing dispute as to the extent of the outgoing trustee's obligation to deliver up all the trust documents to her successor. This appeal is the latest aspect of that dispute.
An important milestone in the interlocutory disputation since 2015 was the application culminating in Hancock v Rinehart (Trust documents) [2018] NSWSC 1684. The Court, constituted by Brereton J (the same judge who had made the orders on 28 May 2015), required Gina to verify by affidavit that there had been compliance. Bianca and her brother had contended that Gina had "not made a genuine attempt to comply with the delivery up order, and indeed has deliberately not done so"; Gina maintained that "any deficiency [was] attributable to a good faith interpretation on her part of the order (in particular, as to what is a 'document of the Trust'), or inadvertence": at [2]. His Honour did not accede to Bianca's submission, expressing his conclusion at [101]: "A finding that the first defendant has not made a good faith attempt at compliance is a very serious one. While the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs are powerful, ultimately I am not prepared to exclude the scale of the exercise and inadvertence as reasonably plausible explanations for the deficiencies - other than misconception of what is a document of the Trust. Accordingly, I am not comfortably satisfied that there has not been a good faith attempt on the part of Mrs Rinehart at compliance."
Central to the issues raised on that application was the definition of the "documents of the Trust" which Gina was required to deliver up to her successor Bianca. Accordingly, his Honour considered at some length the ambit of that term. I shall return to those reasons. His Honour articulated four categories of documents, which framed the submissions before the primary judge and in this Court, and which are central to the outcome. His Honour said at [141]: "The 'documents of the Trust' which Mrs Rinehart is obliged to deliver up comprise: (1) all documents received or held by her or on her behalf exclusively in her trustee capacity (in which the Trust alone has a proprietary interest); (2) all documents received or held by her or on her behalf jointly in her trustee capacity and also in another capacity; (3) all documents received or held by her or on her behalf in her trustee capacity, in which the Trust and another entity or entities also have a proprietary interest, provided that where the original is not in her possession or control a copy must be provided; and (4) all documents received or held by her in some capacity other than as trustee, including as a director of HPPL, which were used in the administration of the Trust."
In this Court, reference was made to "Category 3" and, especially, "Category 4" documents. It will be seen that none of the categories was framed in terms of ownership. This was criticised when Gina sought leave to appeal, in 2019. Her submission was summarised thus, in this Court's reasons refusing leave to appeal in Rinehart v Rinehart [2019] NSWCA 54 at [21]: "The basis of the error, the submission proceeded, lay in the failure of the orders to define 'documents of the Trust' 'in terms that reflect property rights.' The judge, the submission continued, erred in rejecting the assertion that property in a document is to be identified by reference to 'the objective intention of the creator or transferor of a document assessed by reference to all the surrounding circumstances'; ownership of a document 'depends on the capacity in which, for whose benefit, its creator was acting'. The focus in the orders on the capacity in which a document is received demonstrated, the submission proceeded, legal error." (citations omitted).
One reason for refusing leave was the difficulty of formulating and applying a property analysis in the abstract. This Court said at [29]-[30]: "It has long been recognised that the concept of property is by no means singular or straightforward. As the High Court explained in Yanner v Eaton, property 'does not refer to a thing; it is a description of a legal relationship with a thing. It refers to a degree of power that is recognised in law as power permissibly exercised over the thing.' The joint reasons adopted as apt Professor Kevin Gray's proposition that 'the ultimate fact about property is that it does not really exist: it is mere illusion'. Further, as explained by Gummow J '[d]istinct corporeal and incorporeal property rights in relation to the one object may exist concurrently and be held by different parties.' In the present case, identification of "ownership" of a particular document might have been as elusive as identifying the capacity of the person who created it and for what purpose." The concept of 'property' as a basis for identifying the rights of the beneficiary has been criticised as 'circular' and as 'either superfluous or truncated'." (citations omitted).
Ultimately, the order requiring verification of production was stayed by consent and the parties agreed upon a regime reflected in orders made on 5 December 2019 for production involving searches of an electronic database (an aspect of this is peripherally relevant to the abuse of process submissions).

[7]

The motion giving rise to the present appeal

By notice of motion filed 18 March 2020, Bianca sought production of two classes of documents: the "Sceales Files" and the "Bankruptcy Transcripts". The former were identified by reference to six folders provided under cover of a letter addressed to "The Trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust". The latter were transcripts of examinations of Gina on six dates between 16 September 1999 and 20 February 2001.
There is no issue as to the availability of the Sceales Files or the Bankruptcy Transcripts. Both are in Gina's possession. There is evidence by Gina's solicitor, who has reviewed the folders, that they are labelled "Agreement of June 1988" and described as "Copy Set". The evidence describing them was summarised by the primary judge at [38]-[39] and need not be reproduced here. All that matters is that there is no suggestion that the volume or the location of the documents presents any practical difficulty to their being supplied by the former trustee to her successor.
Gina opposed production. She contended that the documents were not "documents of the trust" and thus not prima facie to be provided to the incoming trustee. The submission was rejected, and there is no cross-appeal. However, as will be seen below, there is a lively issue as to the basis upon which her Honour reached the conclusion that the Sceales Files and the Bankruptcy Transcripts in the possession of Gina were documents of the trust.
Gina next maintained that Bianca's application was an abuse of process, on the bases that she was seeking the documents to progress her personal claims in a pending arbitration and because she was taking inconsistent positions in her application and in that arbitration. The arbitration involves her and Gina (and many other parties, including all four beneficiaries of the trust), and has been called the "Martin Arbitration". The primary judge was not satisfied that there was any abuse of process. Gina renews this submission in this Court by way of notice of contention.
Gina also maintained by way of fallback that there should be no production until the conclusion of the Martin Arbitration. Gina submitted that there was a risk that any documents provided to Bianca in her capacity as incoming trustee might be used, wrongly, in the arbitration.
By way of further fallback, Gina said that there should be dispensation from a requirement to produce the documents because doing so was likely to involve Gina breaching her duties as a director of HPPL.

[10]

The consequences of the former trustee not having distinguished documents possessed by her as trustee and in other capacities

Secondly, Gina seemingly did not clearly distinguish between documents received and possessed by her in her capacity as trustee, and documents received and possessed by her in her personal capacity, including as director of HPPL. "[S]o far as appears, [Gina] did not maintain a rigorous separation between trust documents and documents held by her in other capacities, or for that matter HPPL documents; trust documents apparently reside in or with records of HPPL": Hancock v Rinehart (Trust documents) at [47]. But insofar as Gina in her capacity as trustee was merely a co-owner of the documents, it has already been held that they (or a copy of them) fall within the obligation to provide trust documents to Bianca.
Brereton J explained why categories 2 and 3 were formulated as they were. His Honour said at [45]: "One complexity is presented in the present case because, at least arguably, some documents (some in the possession or custody of Mrs Rinehart, and others in the possession or custody of external advisers and consultants) are jointly owned by the Trust and another, or other, Hancock entities. However, where there is joint ownership, the document does not cease to be a trust document just because someone else has an interest in it. Contrary to what appears to be the first defendant's position, I do not accept that she is not obliged to deliver up documents held jointly by the Trust and another entity, on the footing that one joint owner cannot claim possession against another. It may be that where she is not herself in possession of the original, she cannot be required to deliver up the original. However, given the fiduciary nature of her obligation to place the new trustee as far as possible in as good a position as herself with respect to all aspects of administration of the Trust, she must at least deliver up a copy of any such document. Where she (in some capacity other than trustee) is that other entity, she must deliver up the original document (retaining for herself, if she wishes, a copy). Where she is not the other entity, then she must at least deliver up a copy."
Thus where Gina in her capacity as trustee was a co-owner of the documents, it was clear that she either had to produce the document or a copy to the new trustee.
Category 4 emerged from the fact that Gina appears to have intermingled the affairs of the trust and of HPPL. Essentially, Brereton J held that the new trustee should not be disadvantaged by the fact that the former trustee should have taken copies of documents owned by HPPL but used by her in the administration of the trust. His Honour said at [48], reasoning by analogy from what was held in Tiger v Barclays Bank Ltd [1952] 1 All ER 85: "Applied to this case, Bianca is entitled to have provided to her documents received and held by Mrs Rinehart in her capacity as a director of HPPL but used in relation to the administration of the Trust, if they are documents which, but for being a director of HPPL, she would have obtained in her trustee capacity. As it may be assumed that a diligent trustee would have obtained for the purposes of the Trust any document which was in fact used in the administration of the Trust, though it was received in another capacity, that means any document which was received or held in her capacity as a director of HPPL (or in some other capacity), which she in fact used in the administration of the Trust."
The distinction between the obligations based on ownership and those based on use were encapsulated in Lewin on Trusts (Sweet & Maxwell, 20th ed, 2020), Vol 1 at para 21-119: "A new trustee is entitled to require the former trustee to deliver up to him all records, books and other papers belonging to the trust. He is also entitled to inspect and copy other papers (not belonging to the trust) in the hands of the former trustees so far as they contain information relating to the trust. The papers to which he is so entitled include the minutes of meetings of the trustees and the internal memoranda of a corporate trustee and correspondence files." (citations omitted).
That passage cited, among other decisions, Hancock v Rinehart (Trust documents). It was in turn cited with evident approval, albeit obiter, by the New Zealand Supreme Court in Lambie Trust Ltd v Addleman [2021] NZSC 54 at [47]. (I note that in cases to which the Trusts Act 2019 (NZ) applies, s 48 now provides that "At the time that the trusteeship of a trustee ends, if the trust continues, the trustee must give at least 1 replacement trustee or continuing trustee the documents that the trustee holds at that time". There is no counterpart in Western Australia (or for that matter New South Wales), where the form of the legislation traces to nineteenth century English statutes.)
In short, in addition to the rights enjoyed by the incoming trustee by virtue of the vesting and deemed conveyance of trust property, the outgoing trustee's obligation to provide documents may extend to documents in the possession of the outgoing trustee even though not owned by the outgoing trustee.

[11]

The irrelevance of beneficiaries' rights to inspect trust documents

Thirdly, it would be wrong to ask whether Bianca or some other beneficiary were entitled to access to the documents in her capacity as a beneficiary of the trust. The divergence reflected in Avanes v Marshall (2007) 68 NSWLR 595; [2007] NSWSC 191 and McDonald v Ellis (2007) 72 NSWLR 605; [2007] NSWSC 1068 and the applicability in this country of Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] 2 AC 709; [2003] UKPC 26 may and should be put to one side. That is because the obligation of an outgoing trustee to provide documents to his or her successor is based on an entirely different footing from, and goes well beyond, the obligation of a trustee to provide documents to a beneficiary. It has been repeatedly said that cases concerning disclosure to beneficiaries are of little assistance in this area: Hartigan Nominees Pty Ltd v Rydge (1992) 29 NSWLR 405 at 433; In the matter of the Bird Charitable Trust and the Bird Purpose Trust (2012) (1) JLR 62 at [27]; Hancock v Rinehart (Trust documents) at [36]-[37].
I mention this for two reasons. One is because it seems that in the earlier phases on the working out of the 2015 orders, some of the parties wrongly thought those principles had some application, a mistake which seems to have been shared by other litigants: see Wang v Cai [2021] NSWSC 1162 at [280]-[287]. The other is that while there have been some statements to the effect that a beneficiary's entitlement to inspect trust documents is no longer based on property but on the court's concern for proper administration (a helpful overview of the position may be seen in D Clarry, The Supervisory Jurisdiction over Trust Administration (Oxford University Press, 2018) at pp 155-162), that is controversial, especially in cases (such as the present) of a fixed trust. There is no reason to discount the effect of the vesting of property when determining the quite different issues in this litigation, arising between former and successor trustees. The relationship between trustee and trust property is at the core of a trust, and I see no reason to doubt that when analysing the obligations that arise when one trustee is replaced by another, the effect of the vesting of property is critical.

[12]

A duty of co-operation owed by the former trustee

Fourthly, there is a duty of co-operation owed by the former trustee to a successor trustee. This was formulated in In re Ogier Trustee (Jersey) Ltd [2006] JRC 158 at [7], applied In the matter of the Bird Charitable Trust and the Bird Purpose Trust at [24] and adopted by Brereton J in Hancock v Rinehart (Trust documents) at [39] thus: "On the transfer of a trusteeship the outgoing trustee is under a duty to co-operate fully and actively in the transfer by making all relevant documents and correspondence available promptly to the incoming trustee and by providing any explanation to questions reasonably raised by the incoming trustee."
Lewin on Trusts states at para 21-121 that: "The new trustee may need to approach a former trustee for information and explanations not apparent from the trust papers. The former trustee is, to the extent that the request for information or explanation is reasonable in the circumstances, under an obligation to supply the information requested, and he must take reasonable care that any information which he does supply is accurate."
In addition to Ogier Trustee (Jersey) Ltd the authors cite a passage in a decision striking out an action in negligence brought by a successor trustee in bankruptcy, Mond v Hyde [1997] BPIR 250 at 262D ("To decline to answer would be quite extraordinary").
Some care needs to be taken when dealing with the Channel Islands decisions (in addition to those of the Jersey Royal Court, there is also Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v ITG Ltd (Guernsey Royal Court, 30 January 2017, which covers the same principles). In Bird it was mentioned at [19]-[24] that a narrow view of "trust property" for the purposes of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 was adopted, limiting that term to assets which could be distributed to beneficiaries: "It is not possible to distribute legal advice; it is simply something which is obtained by a trustee in order to help him in connection with the administration of the trust. This is so even where the legal advice is paid for out of the trust property."
The same point was made of the (slightly different) statute prevailing in Guernsey in Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees at [50]-[51]. That narrow approach is at odds with the breadth of equity's conception of a trust. The advice of the Privy Council given by Lord Shaw in Lord Strathcona Steamship v Dominion Coal Co [1926] AC 108 at 124 stated: "The scope of the trusts recognized in equity is unlimited. There can be a trust of a chattel or of a chose in action or of a right or obligation under an ordinary legal contract, just as much as a trust of land."
That was regarded as a basic premise by Campbell J in White v Shortall (2006) 68 NSWLR 650; [2006] NSWSC 1379 at [149] and by Jagot J writing for the Full Court in Ellison v Sandini Pty Ltd (2018) 263 FCR 460; [2018] FCAFC 44 at [122]. It may be that the narrow approach to trust property in decisions of the courts of the Channel Islands has led to a broader formulation of the obligation upon the outgoing trustee to deliver documents and provide information. But nothing turns on that for present purposes, for no part of this appeal challenges the existence of the obligation (and, indeed, that obligation was central to Gina's submissions).

[13]

A former trustee may be relieved of the obligation

Finally, it was accepted that there was a discretionary aspect to the incoming trustee's entitlement to documents and information. This was framed by the Royal Court of Jersey in In the matter of the Bird Charitable Trust and the Bird Purpose Trust at [29] and endorsed by Brereton J in this litigation thus: "In summary, an outgoing trustee will normally be under a duty to hand over to an incoming trustee all documents and information which relate to the administration of the trust so as to enable the incoming trustee to fulfil his duties. However, the Court has a discretion to direct that documents or information not be supplied where satisfied, in its supervisory role, that this is the appropriate course. The onus lies on the outgoing trustee to show why the normal rule should not be followed."
Ultimately, that may be best seen as an aspect of the equitable orders that are sought, by way of delivery up - either as an aspect of the trustee's entitlement to property or arising from the personal obligation to co-operate. A court of equity has an inherent authority to supervise and if necessary to intervene in the administration of trusts, as was noted in CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2005) 224 CLR 98; [2005] HCA 53 at [17]. But that does not mean that a current or former trustee or beneficiary has an entitlement to relief as of right.
It seems clear in principle that the nature of the discretion depends upon the precise basis of the new trustee's entitlement. The duty to provide information has a different basis from the duty to provide documents. The former cannot be based on property; the latter was traditionally understood as being based on property (at least in the case of fixed trusts like the present). Further, there may at least in principle be a difference in the exercise of discretion dealing with a chattel which is now owned by the new trustee, and a chattel which was never owned by the former trustee, but was used in the administration of the trust. It is one thing for a former trustee not to be beset with hundreds of requests for information, another to be obliged to make numerous copies of documents not owned by the trustee, and a third thing entirely to resist handing over a large quantity of documents of peripheral relevance to the administration of the trust but which were owned at law by the former trustee and paid for using trust funds. That said, in ordinary cases it is likely that the contents of the documents in dispute will be at least as centrally relevant to the exercise of the discretion as the juristic nature of the obligation to which the former trustee is subject. It is unnecessary to take this any further.
The short point is that it may, sometimes, be unfair to order delivery up. Often that may be because of the magnitude of task. That was the concern to which courts which have addressed the discretion in previous cases have referred. But that is not the present case, where the documents are identified and of small compass. The existence of a discretion and the prominence it has been accorded in this litigation should not distort the basal proposition that, prima facie, the new trustee is to be placed in the same position as the former trustee.

[14]

The reasons of the primary judge

As noted above, the primary judge rejected Gina's submissions that the application was an abuse of process and the documents were not "documents of the trust", but accepted both of Gina's fallback positions. Although ordering production of the documents, her Honour stayed those orders pending the conclusion of the arbitration. Bianca appeals from the decision to stay the operation of the order requiring Gina to produce the documents. Ground 1 of the appeal challenges the stay insofar as it is based upon the risk of misuse. Ground 2 challenges the stay insofar as it is based upon the risk of breach of duty as a director.
The reasons of the primary judge rejecting Gina's submission of an abuse of process, but accepting her fallback submissions that the order for delivery up should be stayed, or alternatively dispensed with, are concise (this reflects the fact that in large measure her Honour's reasoning and findings are unchallenged in this appeal). They are found in [231]-[234] and [253] of her Honour's judgment: "Determination re Gina's "stay" motion 231. I do not accept that it has been established to the requisite standard that Bianca has an improper purpose in seeking the delivery up of the documents in question. Similarly, nor am I prepared to conclude that Bianca is seeking the documents in order to progress her personal claims in the Martin Arbitration. I accept that Bianca does not consider that the allegations being made in the Martin Arbitration are inconsistent with the allegations here made in the context of the applications for delivery up of the documents. I also accept that Bianca is concerned to ensure that she complies with her duties as trustee of the HMH Trust to obtain a complete understanding of the complex history of the Trust. 232. That said, I am concerned that there is the spectre that documents sought in the present application might be relevant to (and available for use) in the Martin Arbitration to the detriment of the interests of the HMH Trust (insofar as the relief that is sought by Bianca in her personal capacity in the Martin Arbitration would, as I understand it, be to strip the HMH Trust of the value of its main asset, namely the shareholding in HPPL). 233. Furthermore, and similarly to my preceding observations (see at [153] above), the fact that it appears that Bianca has no immediate need for the documents, including copies of Bankruptcy Transcripts, tells strongly, in the balancing exercise, towards a stay. 234. In those circumstances, and where HPPL maintains that it has a proprietary interest in the documents and resists production thereof, I consider that the appropriate course is to stay the order for delivery up of the Sceales Files pending the determination of the Martin Arbitration (and without prejudice to the ability of the arbitral panel if it so determines to order the production of the documents in the context of the arbitral proceedings). I have reached the same view, for much the same reasons, concerning any copies of the Bankruptcy Transcripts presently in the actual possession of Gina. … Determination re Gina's "dispensation" motion 253. Again, it is strictly not necessary to deal with Gina's "dispensation" motion in light of my above determinations. Suffice it to say that I accept the submission that it is not appropriate to order Gina to cause HPPL to produce documents if to do so would arguably amount to a breach of Gina's duties as director of HPPL to that company and I consider that this is the likely outcome of an order to require Gina to compel the production of the Sceales Files. Again, I see the same considerations, as relevant, apply with regards to any copies of the Bankruptcy Transcripts presently in the actual possession of Gina. Otherwise, I repeat my observations in determining the Gina's "stay" motion."

[15]

The utility of the appeal

It will have been noted that in [234] the primary judge made it clear that her orders were without prejudice to any order for production of the documents in the Martin Arbitration. Plainly, if that had occurred, that would bear upon the utility of the present appeal.
This arose at the hearing as follows: "WHITE JA: At some point, I don't want to take you off your course, but what bemuses me at the moment is that your submissions say that the documents which are being sought, have central relevance to the claims in The Martin Arbitration, and the submission was made the appropriate way for the plaintiff to seek to obtain these documents would be by discovery application in the arbitration, as I understand it. BOVA: Yes. WHITE JA: Given your acceptance that the documents are of central relevance, does it mean that it's in all probability that these documents will be obtained by Bianca one way or another, and available to be used in the arbitration, which is the very matter which you say is the reason why she shouldn't get the documents on this application. If that's right, although this is all very interesting, I just wonder what the practical significance of it is. Or would you oppose any such application for discovery? BOVA: It's very difficult to answer your Honour's question, given the confidentiality of the arbitration. I can only say that there are claims, for example - it doesn't necessarily follow that there would be production in the Martin Arbitration."
The Court returned to this point at the conclusion of Mr Bova's submissions: "WHITE JA: Have there have been orders made for discovery in the arbitration though? BOVA: Yes. WHITE JA: Do they include these documents? BOVA: I think the answer is 'yes'. WHITE JA: So what are we doing here? BOVA: It's [necessary to be] very careful. I don't think I can properly answer your Honours. Yes. I don't think I can properly answer your Honour's question. Sorry."
Senior counsel for Bianca commenced his reply as follows: "THOMAS: May it please the Court. Can I immediately address White J's question. The documents were sought by my client. Production was opposed on privilege grounds because my client was making that claim in her personal capacity, as opposed to her capacity as trustee. So the former trustee was asserting privilege over trust documents against the new trustee, and that application for privilege has been sustained by the arbitral panel. So we are in a position where, curiously, we are being told that it's privileged - trustee privilege asserted against us in the arbitration. BOVA: It's not common ground, I should say. THOMAS: Well, that's our position on that issue. So, your Honour, there's no basis, we say, for revoking leave. This is a matter of hot contest, and it's acute as a result of that issue. And there is, your Honours have heard, no indication at all by Gina through my learned friend that she would consent to the production of these documents in the arbitration, notwithstanding that she accepts they are relevant to the claims advanced in that proceeding."
I intend to convey no criticism of counsel's reticence at answering a question without notice about an aspect of the arbitration; Mr Bova was quite correct to be conscious of the obligations of confidentiality binding him. However, if the documents had in fact been provided to Bianca through discovery in the arbitration, disclosure of that fact would be necessary for at least three reasons: (a) in order to prevent this Court from proceeding on a materially incorrect basis of the utility of what is yet another interlocutory appeal, (b) in order to prevent an abuse of process and (c) in order to permit the parties and their lawyers to comply with the dictates of s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act. The primary perceived advantage of arbitration in this country is its confidentiality, and that is recognised by statute, but it is not unqualified.
Accordingly, I shall proceed on the basis that the issue is not academic. I express no view on Gina's reasons for resisting production of the documents in the Martin Arbitration, in light of the fact that this Court has an incomplete understanding of the position (once again, no criticism is intended or conveyed by that statement).

[17]

What did the primary judge find concerning the ownership of the Sceales Files and Bankruptcy Transcripts?

Senior counsel for Gina insisted that the primary judge did not find, and was not asked to find, that the documents were property of the trust. She complained that it was not open to Bianca to contend in this Court that the documents were trust property. For example, it was said, forcefully, that "[c]ontrary to the appellant's repeated and unexplained assertion, the documents are therefore not 'property' of the HMH Trust in the sense of chattels owned by the first respondent for the benefit of that trust". In oral addresses, Bianca insisted that the primary judge had been asked to find, and had in fact found, that Gina had owned or co-owned the documents, while the tenor of Gina's submissions was that the finding of the primary judge was based on Category 4 and that category alone, with the consequence that there was no finding that Gina had any proprietary interest in the documents, and that Bianca's entitlement was based on what was styled as an "equitable duty of co-operation".
Although this is in a sense at one stage removed from the grounds of appeal, I shall address it, not because it was fiercely contested in the oral and written submissions in this Court, but because it is an anterior issue which informs the exercise of discretion which Bianca sought to impugn and which Gina sought to affirm.
I do not accept either side's submissions in full. The position is more nuanced.
First, contrary to Gina's submissions, the record demonstrates that Bianca did in fact assert that the Sceales Files and Bankruptcy Transcripts were property of the trust. Senior counsel then appearing for Bianca said: "if you assume that there were company documents, and your Honour shouldn't make that assumption, I'll come back to it, but if you make that assumption, those documents are provided for the trustee's use to obtain the advice from Sceales. And it's at that point in time that we say that the document become the property of the trust."
But it is true that the gravamen of Bianca's submissions to her Honour reflected the criticisms made by this Court in refusing leave to appeal from the Hancock v Rinehart (Trust documents) judgment, and for the most part did not resort to an analysis of ownership. Thus Bianca's written submissions identified two bases on which the Sceales Files were required to be produced, namely "First basis: the Sceales Files were received by Gina or on her behalf as trustee" and "Second basis; the Sceales Files were used by Gina or on her behalf as trustee".
Consistently with this, senior counsel then appearing for Bianca said, immediately following the passage reproduced above: "But this issue about the nature of the proprietary interest that is said to exist is really actually a distraction, because Justice Brereton found that it doesn't matter if there is co-ownership of documents."
Secondly, the point of the submission made by counsel who appeared for Bianca before the primary judge was that if the documents had been used by Gina as trustee, then their ownership was irrelevant. If they were owned or co-owned by Gina in her capacity as trustee, they fell within Categories 1, 2 or 3, and prima facie were required to be delivered. Even if they were not owned or co-owned by her as trustee, they still had to be delivered to Bianca as falling within Category 4, on the basis that Gina's failure to keep trust documents separate from other documents could not be relied upon to the disadvantage of the incoming trustee.
Thirdly, the primary judge acceded to both aspects of the submission made on behalf of Bianca. The unchallenged, dispositive reasoning as to the status of the Sceales Files is at [146]-[148]: "146. Turning first to the Sceales Files, I am satisfied that those documents were compiled by HPPL. The evidence is not clear as to on whose instruction the files were compiled but there is an available and permissible inference to be drawn that it was ultimately on Gina's instructions (however those instructions were conveyed) since the documents were provided to Sceales & Co (which firm was retained by Gina) and were understood by Sceales & Co to have been provided for the purposes of the giving of "Trust advice". Moreover, it is significant, in my opinion, that they were returned to HPPL under cover of a letter addressed to the trustee of the HMH Trust. Irrespective of whether that was an error or not, it points to Sceales & Co having the understanding that the client on whose instructions the advice was being provided was the trustee of the HMH Trust (and, indeed, the fact that such an error could be made, to my mind, fortifies that conclusion). Indeed, if that was not the case then it was open to Gina to give evidence to explain the position. The fact that Mr Scott (on information and belief from Mr Bickerton) has deposed that Mr Bickerton does not recall discussing this with Gina does not explain how it can have come to be that Sceales & Co understood that the files provided to the firm (and being returned to the trustee of the HMH Trust) were not in the context of advice being provided to the said trustee if that were not indeed the case. 147. Put differently, the documents were returned to HPPL's offices but addressed to the trustee of the HMH Trust. They must be accepted as having been "received" by Gina. The fact that HPPL may have a proprietary interest in the Sceales Files (by virtue of their compilation) does not alter the fact that they were received and held by Gina in her capacity as trustee of the HMH Trust. Further, they were used in the administration of the Trust in the sense that they were considered by and the subject of advice given to the trustee of the HMH Trust, including as to the issues the subject of those Sceales advices to which Brereton J referred. 148. Therefore, I consider that the Sceales Files are documents falling within the delivery up order." (emphasis added)
It will be recalled that Category 3 was "all documents received or held by her or on her behalf in her trustee capacity, in which the Trust and another entity or entities also have a proprietary interest". The second and third sentences in [147] (which are emphasised above) express the conclusion that the Sceales Files are apt to fall within category 3, while the fourth sentence expresses the conclusion that they are also apt to fall within category 4. That conclusion derives from the following considerations: 1. First, it reflects the two bases upon which Bianca's submissions were advanced: the "first basis" being documents received by Gina or on her behalf as trustee, and the "second basis" being documents used by Gina or on her behalf as trustee. 2. Secondly, the second and third sentences substantially mirror the language of category 3, while the fourth sentence substantially reflects the language of category 4. 3. Thirdly, the word "Further" commencing the fourth sentence is naturally understood as identifying a separate aspect of for the conclusion that the documents were "documents of the Trust".
It will be seen that her Honour was economical with findings on this issue. That approach was consistent with the cautionary words of this Court reproduced above about the technicality and aridity and potential circularity of findings based on property and the conventional curial parsimony of only making findings to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute. The effect of her Honour's reasoning was that if Gina as trustee had a proprietary interest in the documents, they fell within Category 3, and if she did not, then they fell within Category 4. Either way, they had to be produced, and it was unnecessary to determine in which category they fell because whatever that be, they were "documents of the Trust".
The alternative submission, advanced by Gina, is that there was a finding only that the documents fell within category 4 and which impliedly found that Gina as trustee did not have a proprietary interest in the documents. That is a decidedly unnatural way of reading the paragraph. There is nothing in the language to convey an actual finding that Gina did not own or co-own the documents. And Gina's submission is inconsistent with the words which introduced the third sentence of [147]: "The fact that HPPL may have a proprietary interest in the Sceales Files …". That language is inconsistent with an implicit finding that HPPL in fact owned or had a proprietary interest in the Sceales Files. But the language accords with Bianca's submissions to her Honour that a precise identification of ownership or property rights was not to the point and unnecessary insofar as it did not matter for the purpose of identifying whether the Sceales Files were "documents of the Trust".
That is to say, the sense of the submission made to her Honour by Bianca was that the issue of any ownership of HPPL might be put to one side. If HPPL was a co-owner with Gina, the document fell within Category 3. If HPPL was the sole owner, then even so if it was used in the administration of the trust, then it fell within Category 4. This is quite different from Gina's submission that her Honour positively found that the documents were not property of the trust in the sense of chattels owned or co-owned by Gina in her capacity as trustee because they fell within Category 4.
Thus, contrary to Bianca's submission, I do not accept that her Honour found that Gina had owned or co-owned the documents in her capacity as trustee. I agree with Gina's submission that the substance of Bianca's submission had been that her Honour did not have to make any such finding. However, contrary to Gina's further submission, I do not accept that the only basis upon which her Honour found that the Sceales Files and the Bankruptcy Transcripts were "documents of the Trust" was because they fell in Category 4 and were thus documents in which Gina did not have a proprietary interest. Her Honour found that they were either in Category 4 or in an earlier category, and either way were prima facie to be produced to Bianca.
As noted above, I think that the exercise of the discretion to order production is affected by whether the new trustee is the legal owner of the pieces of paper, or is a co-owner, or is entitled to copies of the paper only because the outgoing trustee mixed up trust documents with non-trust documents which were used in the administration of the trust. Hence in some cases, the failure to make a precise finding as to the nature of the proprietary interest of the former trustee which is now vested in the current trustee may be problematic. However, in the present case, for the reasons I shall address immediately, it makes no difference.

[18]

The spectre of misuse

The primary judge expressed concern at the "spectre" of misuse of the documents by Bianca in her personal capacity in the Martin Arbitration. I respectfully disagree that that is a material consideration.
First, Bianca is advised by practitioners who are more than competent. It is unreal to think that she will deploy the documents in the arbitration without first taking advice. Not lightly would one infer that she will misuse the documents, or the information they contain.
Secondly, there is no reason to doubt that other parties to the arbitration, including Gina, who is also advised by practitioners who are more than competent, will do anything other than vigorously defend such entitlement as they may have not to be subjected to the misuse of documents or information. The appropriate venue for that to occur is the arbitration, which is fully apprised of the issues, and not this Court, where the real issues are shrouded in confidentiality.
Thirdly, Gina protested, repeatedly, that her opposition to production was altruistic: she was not seeking to gain any advantage for herself, but rather to prevent "detriment" to the "interests of the trust". That submission warrants unpacking.
The trust has vested. There is no such legal person as a trust. There are four beneficiaries. The "interests of the trust" can mean nothing more nor less than the interests of the four beneficiaries. All four are of age. None objects to the delivery of trust documents to the new trustee.
This was raised this during the hearing: "LEEMING JA: No beneficiary is being heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to raise the spectre of damage to the interests of the trust, whatever that is, and at the moment, I don't see how it can be anything other than an interest of a beneficiary. BOVA: I'm not sure what right or beneficiary of the HMH trust would have to come to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and seek any relief in respect of Bianca Rinehart's personal claims that are being brought in an arbitration. LEEMING JA: Well, to be blunt about it, I'm not sure that I see what [right] a former trustee, who undoubtedly is interested in frustrating the claims in the arbitration, has to come to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and speak on behalf of some of the beneficiaries whose interests are going to be detrimentally affected by the trustee. And this goes straight to one of the bases of the decision. BOVA: I don't accept, with respect, that we're speaking on behalf of the beneficiaries. We are effectively asking the court to grant dispensation for a limited period of time from an obligation to cooperate in respect-- LEEMING JA: Out of a concern not for any benefit to your own client, but so as to avoid the risk of detriment to some of the beneficiaries of this trust. BOVA: Yes, that's essentially it. LEEMING JA: It strikes me as odd."
There is no compelling reason to think that Gina's objection to production is wholly altruistic, in the sense that irrespective of any benefit or detriment to herself, she is objecting to produce documents to her successor trustee in order to prevent Bianca from the risk of misuse. The contents of the documents are known to Gina and Gina alone. How they are likely to be used is something which Gina is better placed than anyone else to assess. The history to this litigation makes it not unlikely that Gina apprehends that the documents contain information which may be used against her. If so, that would mean that in this litigation, in her capacity as former trustee, she is seeking dispensation from an obligation because of a fear that she will be disadvantaged in another forum in her personal capacity. This would be the clearest conflict between her fiduciary obligation as former trustee, and her self-interest. The former prevails.
If on the other hand the use of the documents gives rise to no detriment to Gina, but might impact any of Bianca's siblings (who are the other three beneficiaries of the trust), then all are parties to the Martin Arbitration. So far as the evidence discloses, they have not to date complained of a breach of the fiduciary duty owed by Bianca to them. If the use of the documents is a breach of duty, then it may be expected that they will either oppose the use, or authorise Bianca to do what would otherwise be a breach of trust.
Either way, I respectfully disagree with the primary judge that any spectre of misuse is a reason for withholding production. That conclusion is reached irrespective of whether (as Gina contends) the sole basis on which the documents are "documents of the Trust" is Category 4, or whether (as I consider to be what occurred) the primary judge did not exclude the possibility that Gina had a proprietary interest in the documents which has now vested in Bianca.

[20]

Should Gina be dispensed from compliance?

Ground 2 was a challenge to the alternative basis given by the primary judge for the stay, namely, Gina's application for dispensation. This turned first on Gina's submission that production of the documents would likely result in Gina being in breach of her duties to HPPL. In response to Bianca's submission that no breach was identified, Gina submitted: "As her Honour explained, and as described above, the documents sought were clearly relevant to claims by [Bianca] in her personal capacity against HPPL, inter alia. Any number of statutory, equitable and legal directors' duties could be breached by delivery up of documents to another party in proceedings where these may assist claims against the company. As with the stay, proceeding on the basis of risks, rather than likelihoods, was proper."
I respectfully disagree.
First, it is no answer of itself to an obligation by a trustee who chooses to retire to deliver trust documents to her successor to say that doing so may put her in breach of duties the outgoing trustee owes in a different capacity to other companies. That submission merely leads to a further question: which is to prevail: the fiduciary obligation owed by the former trustee, or the duty owed in a different capacity to some other person? I would add that there is a measure of forensic unreality to Gina's submission, insofar as it turned upon an obligation owed to HPPL. HPPL is a party to this proceeding, and played an active role before the primary judge, but has submitted to this appeal. It makes no claim that there is any breach by Gina of a duty owed by her to it.
Secondly, either the documents are to be provided to Bianca because she owns or co-owns them following the vesting order, or else they are documents which Gina had received and should have made copies of when she was a trustee. But in either case, I fail to see how complying with a direct obligation owed to a successor in title, or taking steps to make a copy to provide a document which should have been copied when she was a trustee and providing that to the new trustee, would amount to a breach of duty. If there is a breach of duty, it came about because of either or both of Gina's decisions (a) to resign from her office of trustee and (b) to fail to maintain a rigorous separation between trust documents and company documents. The order requiring production of documents is merely the ordinary consequence of Gina's earlier choices.
Thirdly, if as Gina says the documents are relevant to the issues in the Martin Arbitration but for some reason Bianca should not be permitted to access to them, then that is a matter best adjudicated in the arbitration which is apprised of the issues, not this Court which is not.
This ground is also made out.

[21]

The primary judge correctly declined to find any abuse of process

Against the possibility that this Court would re-exercise the discretion favourably to Bianca, Gina maintained that this Court should find that Bianca's application was an abuse of process, because she sought documents for an improper purpose.
Gina acknowledged that her case was an inferential one. She relied on the primary judge's finding that the documents were "clearly relevant to [Bianca's] personal claims in the Martin Arbitration and of no apparent relevance to the administration of the HMH Trust". She said that search terms which had been deployed as part of the consensual regime for the production of documents (such as "Debt Reconstruction", "HFMF" and "Plan of 22 June 1988") suggested that she was seeking documents in her personal capacity and not as relevant to the administration of the trust. She relied upon Bianca's failure to provide an explanation of her purpose.
Alternatively, Gina submitted that Bianca sought the documents "on the basis that [Gina] controlled HFMF for the HMH Trusts", whereas "in the Martin Arbitration, [Bianca] contends that control of HFMF was an asset of the separate HFMF Trust. On ordinary principles of abuse of process, [Gina] ought not be vexed by such inconsistent contentions in overlapping proceedings."
These submissions were not developed orally. I do not accept that Gina has made out the serious allegation that Bianca's application is an abuse of process and should on that basis be refused. It does not fall to Bianca to explain her purpose in obtaining the trust documents. She is under an obligation to obtain the documents of the trust as incoming trustee, just as Gina is under an obligation to hand trust documents over to her successor. Insofar as Gina's submissions turn on the claims made in the Martin Arbitration, the arbitrators are well placed to adjudicate whether any use made of the documents is improper. Two reasons why that is so are that (a) the precise issues, and the evidence which will be adduced by the parties, will be before the arbitrators and (b) all four beneficiaries of the trust are parties to the arbitration, and they may either consent to any use by Bianca, or alternatively oppose any such use, on the basis that Bianca is in breach of a duty owed to them. Finally, the extent of Gina's obligation to provide trust documents to her successor as trustee should have been resolved years ago. The fact that by reason of delay aspects of the dispute now overlap with the arbitration does not excuse Gina from placing her successor trustee in the same position she had been.

[22]

The re-exercise of the discretion and orders

For those reasons, the appeal must be allowed and the discretion re-exercised. It will be plain from the above that this is a clear case for Gina to be ordered to provide the Sceales Files and the Bankruptcy Transcripts to Bianca. If those documents were owned or co-owned by Gina in her capacity as trustee, they are now owned or co-owned by Bianca (and have been since 28 May 2015) and should be made available to their new owner or co-owner. If the documents were not owned nor co-owned by Gina, then they were used by her in the administration of the trust, and Bianca is not to be placed in a disadvantageous position as incoming trustee by reason of Gina's failure to distinguish between documents held by her in other capacities and documents held by her as trustee. Insofar as there are concerns raised by Gina regarding the use of the documents in the Martin Arbitration, the concerns are those of persons who are not parties to this proceeding, but who are parties to that arbitration, and the validity of those concerns is much better addressed in the arbitration than in this Court. Gina's submissions that Bianca has no present need for the documents are not an answer to the obligation to provide them to her successor as trustee, nor is her concern that doing so may be a breach of some duty she owes to another company, nor is any inconsistency in position taken by Bianca in this litigation and the arbitration.
Accordingly, the stay should be lifted. The orders I propose will have the effect that Gina must provide the Sceales Files and the Bankruptcy Transcripts within 14 days of today. Costs should follow the event.
My present view is that nothing in these reasons reflects anything other than materials tendered without restriction, or submissions made in open court. (I am conscious that some of the submissions were said to be confidential, and without expressing a view on the accuracy of that proposition, they have not been included in this judgment.) However, in light of the concerns that have been expressed, I would propose that this judgment not be published on CaseLaw for a period of 7 days. If there is an application for any orders under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), then that may be made on motion supported by affidavit and short submissions within that timeframe. Any such application will need to have regard to the provisions of that statute.
I propose the following orders: 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the stay of orders 2 and 3 made on 17 December 2020 with effect from 14 days from today, and in lieu thereof dismiss Gina's application for a stay or for dispensation from production. 3. Note that the effect of order 2 above is that Gina is required to deliver up the Sceales Files and the Bankruptcy Transcripts to Bianca no later than 14 days from today. 4. Set aside order 2 made on 6 January 2021, and in lieu thereof order that Gina pay Bianca's costs of Bianca's amended notice of motion seeking delivery up of the Sceales Files and Bankruptcy Transcripts and of Gina's application to stay the delivery up of those documents or for dispensation in relation thereto. 5. Gina to pay Bianca's costs of the appeal.
WHITE JA: I agree with Leeming JA.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (23 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (6)

Cases Cited (20)

Cited By (1)