Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Rinehart (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 208 Appeal from: Rinehart v Rinehart (No 3) [2016] FCA 539
File numbers: NSD 916 of 2016 NSD 922 of 2016
Judges: ALLSOP CJ, BESANKO AND O'CALLAGHAN JJ
Date of judgment: 15 December 2017
Catchwords: ARBITRATION – stay of proceeding brought in Court in favour of arbitration – making of orders COSTS – appropriate order for costs – whether costs of stay application below and on appeal should follow the event – whether costs below and on appeal should be payable forthwith
Legislation: Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s 8
Cases cited: AED Oil Ltd v Puffin FPSO Ltd (No 2) [2010] VSCA 109 Amcor Packaging (Australia) Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 253 Ansett Australia Ltd v Malaysian Airline System Berhad (No 2) [2008] VSC 156 Australian Maritime Systems Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd [2016] WASC 52 (S) Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 192; 157 FCR 45 Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Rinehart [2017] FCAFC 170 John Holland Pty Limited v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 564 Novawest Contracting Pty Ltd v Brimbank City Council [2015] VSC 679 Pipeline Services WA Pty Ltd v ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 10 (S) Re Ikon Group Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 981
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate