Hancock claims Wright children gave up rights

The late Michael Wright and mining heiress Angela Bennett knew they already gave up their interests in mining tenements likely worth in the billions of dollars since the 1980s, the court was told.

A costly civil trial among descendants of late mining pioneers Peter Wright and Lang Hancock continues in the Supreme Court of Western Australia as Hancock Prospecting (HPPL) nears the end of its closing submissions.

Wright Prospecting (WPPL) claims it is owed royalties from iron ore produced on Pilbara mining tenements, named Hope Downs, and that it has an ownership stake in reserves formerly known as East Angelas, which have been co-owned by HPPL and Rio Tinto since 2005.

The disputed reserves were once partnership assets of Mr Wright and Mr Hancock under a series of agreements struck in the 1980s, the court was previously told.

Speaking before Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Smith today, counsel for Hancock Prospecting Peter Brereton SC spent the morning doubling down on Peter Wright’s children, claiming they knew they were giving up WPPL’s rights to East Angelas since the mid-1980s.

Michael Wright died in 2012, while Mrs Bennett had kept out of the public eye for years.

“In 1985 and 1986, Lang Hancock explained very clearly to Michael Wright and Angela Bennett that what he said to Michael, Angela and at that time Julian [Wright] as well … the opportunity was one for the partnership,” he said.

“Michael and Angela knew full well what the opportunity was; it wasn’t for HPPL but opportunity for the partnership.

“WPPL made a conscious decision to allow HPPL to take up East Angelas opportunity notwithstanding it had been a partnership opportunity.

“WPPL chose to yield East Angelas to HPPL and yield any rights WPPL has in East Angelas.”

Hancock Prospecting has been led by Mr Hancock's daughter Gina Rinehart since his death in 1992.

The court was told WPPL commenced legal proceedings in 2010. 

“As far as Michael Wright and Angela Bennett were concerned, WPPL had long ago accepted that East Angelas was exploited for HPPL alone and not for the partnership or WPPL,” Mr Brereton told the court.

“They were not going to try to change that position eighteen years or so down the track; it wasn’t a lack of knowledge that WPPL knew that had interest.

“No-one from WPPL had provided explanation on why this [action] started after an inordinate delay and only after the most relevant minds of WPPL had died or departed.”

Speaking to the court, Mr Brereton said minutes of a meeting in July 1990 also showed neither the late Mr Wright nor Mrs Bennett objected to drilling and assessment on the reserves.

Mr Brereton said WPPL did not contribute to rents or expenditure associated with developing East Angelas despite having access to financial documents.

“It beggars belief that WPPL could even consider things being done to East Angelas from 1989 onwards, particularly 1992 onwards, taken by HPPL or related entity for the partnership … yet did not once query the rent or expenditure going through the books pertaining to East Angelas,” he said.

“The notion that WPPL assumed the whole time that East Angelas was being exploited for the partnership is frankly an absurd one when one has regard to the evidence.

“Even though HPPL was managing partner … it did not mean information about the partnership, that expenditure, was withheld from WPPL.

“While HPPL was managing partner for a relatively short period of time, WPPL received regular financial accounts that no partnership expenditure was planned for East Angelas and no partnership expenditure was incurred for the partnership.

“After 1992, when WPPL took charge of accounting and tax affairs for the partnership, the point would be even more obvious to WPPL.”

The trial continues.