Hancock v Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited [2022] NSWCA 152

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hancock v Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited [2022] NSWCA 152 Hearing dates: 26 July 2022 Date of orders: 18 August 2022 Decision date: 18 August 2022 Before: Brereton JA at [1]; Mitchelmore JA at [21] Decision: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. Catchwords: APPEALS – jurisdiction of appellate court – Court of Appeal – where jurisdiction of Supreme Court of NSW invoked pursuant to cross-vesting legislation – where Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA), s 13(5), provides first-instance decision that is "within the limits of the authority of the Court" is "final" – whether s 13(5) precludes appeal to Court of Appeal by way of a rehearing pursuant to Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101 – whether s 13(5) precludes appeal to Court of Appeal from decisions of courts, including superior courts, for jurisdictional error COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION – composition of arbitral tribunal – grounds for challenge to arbitrator – where presiding arbitrator's now wife acted for respondents in connection with transactions relevant to the arbitration, in 1994, while in relationship with him – where applicants sought termination of arbitrator's mandate – whether "justifiable doubts" as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence – whether necessary to consider whether combined effect of circumstances gives rise to justifiable doubts when individual circumstances do not – whether erroneous to consider whether doubts overcome by rational arguments distancing wife from respondents – whether decision of primary judge involved finding that Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA), s 12(3), sets higher threshold than Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63 – no arguable error warranting grant of leave Legislation Cited: Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), s 14 Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA), ss 1C, 12, 13, 14 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW), s 9 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (WA), s 4 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.10 Cases Cited: Be Financial Pty Ltd v Das [2012] NSWCA 164 Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29; (2021) 64 Fam LR 94 Daley v Donaldson [2022] NSWCA 96 Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 214 CLR 496; [2003] HCA 26 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63 Hockey v Yelland (1984) 157 CLR 124; [1984] HCA 72 Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1 Ku-ring-gai Council v Ichor Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 99 NSWLR 260; [2019] NSWCA 2 Petch v DPP (NSW) [2022] NSWCA 33 PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48 Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206 Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 736; [1956] 1 All ER 855 The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26 Torbey Investments Corporated Pty Ltd v Ferrara [2017] NSWCA 9 Texts Cited: JRS Forbes, Justice in Tribunals, Federation Press (2002), p 260 M Kingston, "Hard verdict on a judicial affair of the heart", Sydney Morning Herald, 23 February 1995, p 6 Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Langley Hancock (First applicant) Bianca Hope Rinehart (Second applicant) Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (First respondent) Hancock Minerals Pty Ltd (Second respondent) Tadeusz Watroba (Third respondent) Westraint Resources Pty Ltd (Fourth respondent) HMHT Investments Pty Ltd (Fifth respondent) Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (Sixth respondent) Roy Hill Iron Ore Pty Ltd (Seventh respondent) Mulga Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (Eighth respondent) Georgina Hope Rinehart (Ninth respondent) 150 Investments Pty Ltd (Tenth respondent) Hope Rinehart Welker (Eleventh respondent) Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart (Twelfth respondent) Hancock Family Memorial Foundation Ltd (Thirteenth respondent) Mulga Downs Investments Pty Ltd (Fourteenth respondent) Representation: Counsel: DFC Thomas SC, DP Hume, and TM Rogan (Applicants) N Hutley SC, J Hutton, K Sutton, and P Springthorpe (First to Eighth Respondents) PD Herzfeld SC and HD Ryan (Ninth and Tenth Respondents)