Ruling notes that delay in underlying arbitration has also been substantial
While the costs applicants’ delay in applying for leave to file a bill of costs in each of the appeals had been lengthy, the Australian High Court also described the delay in the completion of the principal arbitration as substantial.
This case is Rinehart & Anor v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors; Rinehart & Anor v Georgina Hope Rinehart (in her personal capacity and as trustee of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust and as trustee of the HFMF Trust) & Ors [2026] HCASJ 25.
Before the Australian Federal Court, the costs respondents initiated proceedings against Mrs Rinehart, Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd, 150 Investments Pty Ltd, and other entities based on an arbitration agreement.
The Full Court of the Federal Court stayed the proceedings. The costs respondents appealed against the Full Court decision, and other respondents cross-appealed.
Before the High Court, Mrs Rinehart and 150 Investments (the costs applicants) received separate representation. On 8 May 2019, the High Court dismissed the appeals. The High Court allowed the other respondents’ cross-appeal.
The High Court ordered the costs respondents to pay the costs of all the respondents to their appeals, including the costs applicants.
On 18 May 2026, under r 4.03.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the costs applicants applied for leave to file a bill of costs in the appeals.
The High Court granted the ninth and eleventh respondents in the matter no. S143/2018 leave pursuant to r 4.03.2 to file a bill of costs, as well as granted the first and second respondents in the matter no. S144/2018 leave under r 4.03.2 to file a bill of costs.
The High Court made no costs order for the application filed on 18 May 2026.
The High Court acknowledged that the cost applicants brought their costs application more than four years following the expiry on 8 May 2022 of the three-year period under r 4.03.2.
The High Court found it understandable that the costs applicants wanted to quantify amounts owed in their favour in order to enforce them or bring them to account upon the resolution of the principal arbitration and other proceedings.
The High Court saw no tactical reason for the costs applicants’ delay. The High Court noted that Mr Speed, a lawyer for the costs applicants, sought to file the costs application in February 2026.
As Mr Speed had asserted, if there had been a tactical basis for the delay, he would have filed the costs application during the principal arbitration, which had kept the costs respondents and their solicitors heavily occupied.
Based on Mr Speed’s affidavits, the High Court attributed the delay in filing the bill of costs to the intense work involved for the principal arbitration in circumstances where there were hopes of avoiding the associated taxes.
By late 2025, when the award remained pending and that approach had lost its attraction, the costs applicants attempted to quantify and enforce their costs order in the High Court.
The High Court noted that the parties:
Here are some recent decisions by the High Court of Australia.
In a proceeding brought by a former part-time then full-time employee of Woolworths Limited, a High Court justice made a 28 July 2026 decision summarily dismissing the plaintiff’s application for a constitutional or other writ as an abuse of process.
A High Court justice issued a 20 July 2026 decision denying a proposed application for leave to issue or file a constitutional or other writ seeking to raise the question of whether there were only two genders.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
