High Court: Rinehart Gets Leave to File Bill of Costs Despite Delay

• The Australian High Court granted Gina Rinehart and 150 Investments Pty Ltd leave to file a bill of costs, despite a substantial delay.
• The application was made on May 18, 2026, more than four years after the three-year deadline under High Court Rules 4.03.2.
• The High Court found no tactical reason for the delay, attributing it to intense work on an underlying arbitration and initial hopes of avoiding associated taxes.
• This decision stems from a May 8, 2019, High Court order for costs respondents to pay Mrs. Rinehart and 150 Investments' costs in related appeals.
• The Court noted that the principal arbitration itself had also experienced significant delays, providing context for the late filing.

The High Court ultimately found no tactical motive behind the applicants' substantial delay, instead attributing it to the intense demands of the ongoing principal arbitration and initial considerations regarding tax implications.

The Australian High Court has recently permitted Gina Rinehart and 150 Investments Pty Ltd to file a bill of costs, despite a significant delay in their application. This decision, rendered in the case of *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, addresses a long-standing dispute that originated in the Federal Court.

The initial proceedings saw Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and other entities, identified as the costs respondents, initiate action against Mrs. Rinehart, 150 Investments Pty Ltd, and others, based on an arbitration agreement. The Full Court of the Federal Court subsequently stayed these proceedings. This led to an appeal by the costs respondents against the Full Court's decision, with other respondents, including Mrs. Rinehart and 150 Investments, filing cross-appeals.

On May 8, 2019, the High Court dismissed the appeals brought by the costs respondents and, crucially, allowed the cross-appeal filed by the other respondents. As part of its ruling, the High Court ordered the costs respondents to cover the costs incurred by all respondents to their appeals, a directive that included the costs applicants, Mrs. Rinehart and 150 Investments. This established their entitlement to recover costs.

Despite the High Court's clear order in 2019, Mrs. Rinehart and 150 Investments, acting as the costs applicants, did not seek leave to file their bill of costs until May 18, 2026. This application was made under r 4.03.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), which typically mandates a three-year period for such filings. The High Court acknowledged that the application was brought more than four years after the May 8, 2022, expiry of this standard three-year window.

Specifically, the High Court granted leave to the ninth and eleventh respondents in matter no. S143/2018, as well as the first and second respondents in matter no. S144/2018, to file their respective bills of costs. Notably, the High Court did not issue any separate costs order for the application filed on May 18, 2026, itself.

The considerable delay in filing the bill of costs in Australia prompted the High Court to scrutinize the reasons behind the postponement, particularly given the strict timelines usually associated with High Court costs application leave.

The High Court found the costs applicants' desire to quantify the amounts owed to them, with a view to enforcement or accounting upon the resolution of the principal arbitration and other related proceedings, to be understandable. Crucially, the Court determined there was no tactical reason for the delay in filing the bill of costs. This assessment was supported by an affidavit from Mr. Speed, a lawyer representing the costs applicants, who asserted that any tactical motive would have led to the application being filed during the principal arbitration, a period when the costs respondents and their legal teams were heavily engaged.

According to Mr. Speed's affidavits, the primary reasons for the delay in filing the bill of costs were the intense work required for the principal arbitration and an initial hope of avoiding associated taxes. It was not until late 2025, when the arbitration award remained pending and the tax-avoidance approach became less attractive, that the costs applicants moved to quantify and enforce their High Court costs order.

Adding to the context, the High Court also observed that the completion of the principal arbitration itself had experienced substantial delays, mirroring the prolonged timeline of the costs application. This parallel delay in the underlying arbitration costs enforcement delay likely contributed to the Court's understanding of the applicants' situation.

The High Court's decision to grant leave, despite the significant delay beyond the period stipulated by Australian High Court Rules 4.03.2, offers important insights into the Court's discretion regarding procedural timelines. The ruling underscores that while adherence to rules is generally expected, the Court is prepared to consider justifiable, non-tactical reasons for delays in seeking High Court leave to file a bill of costs.

The High Court ultimately found no tactical motive behind the applicants' substantial delay, instead attributing it to the intense demands of the ongoing principal arbitration and initial considerations regarding tax implications. This outcome suggests that circumstances such as overwhelming workload on an underlying complex matter or strategic financial planning, when presented transparently and without evidence of manipulative intent, can serve as valid grounds for extending deadlines for costs applications.

This case, *Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting costs*, highlights that the Court will weigh the specific context and motivations behind a delay, rather than applying a rigid interpretation of time limits, particularly when the underlying dispute itself is protracted. It provides a precedent for parties facing similar challenges in managing complex litigation and arbitration costs enforcement delay.

This ruling indicates that the High Court may grant leave to file a bill of costs even after substantial delays, provided there is a non-tactical and justifiable reason, such as intense work on an underlying arbitration or tax considerations. Lawyers should be aware that strict adherence to costs application timelines may be mitigated by such circumstances, impacting advice on litigation strategy and cost recovery.

Source: Original reporting via legal news publication