A lawyer for Wright Prospecting claims Gina Rinehart and her father Lang Hancock knew disputed Pilbara tenements were held on behalf of the Hancock and Wright partnership since the mid-1980s, a court heard today.
A lawyer for Wright Prospecting claims Gina Rinehart and her father Lang Hancock knew disputed Pilbara tenements were held on behalf of the Hancock and Wright partnership since the mid-1980s, a court heard today.
Wright Prospecting, run by descendants of prospector Peter Wright, has launched legal action against Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting (HPPL) over ownership and royalties from mining tenements referred to as Hope Downs and East Angelas in the Pilbara.
Mining pioneers Lang Hancock and Peter Wright had business dealings since the 1960s, mainly on exploring and expanding iron ore projects in the Pilbara.
Barrister Julie Taylor SC, for Wright Prospecting, continued her opening submissions on the trial’s second day at the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
Speaking before WA Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Smith today, Ms Taylor revealed contents of correspondence and documents exchanged by the related parties, including a letter between Mrs Rinehart and her father.
Wright Prospecting claimed Mrs Rinehart knew from at least February 1986, that the assets were held jointly for the partnership, Ms Taylor told the court.
“In our submission, this is very significant evidence that both Lang Hancock and Mrs Rinehart knew and understood that those areas were held jointly for the partnership,” she said.
The East Angelas tenements were owned by the state government for some time before being reacquired by HPPL.
In court, Ms Taylor said Mr Hancock continued lobbying the state government to recover the areas in the 1970s, at times sending letters using the Hancock/Wright partnership’s letterhead.
In 1984, the then Minerals and Energy Minister addressed a letter to Mr Hancock on giving back the held reserves under conditions, Ms Taylor told the court.
“This can only be interpreted to be addressed to Lang Hancock on behalf of partnership given the lobbying efforts by the partnership,” she said.
“The attempt to say that this is now Lang Hancock’s project instead of the continued partnership must be rejected.
“East Angelas exploration licence mining leases can only be seen as the fruits of the commercial opportunity of this partnership.
“Alternatively, this was held on trust for the partnership.
“Lang Hancock and HPPL here uses the partnership’s name, reputation and history, the partnership’s good will and commercial opportunity…in order to apply for and received the tenements.”
In court, Ms Taylor also set out the correspondence between the two mining pioneers and the state government, including former WA premier Brian Burke, in the lead up and surrounding a 1984 agreement.
Ms Taylor said the 1984 agreement, which listed a division of assets between Hancock and Wright, did not include Hope Downs and East Angeles.
However, Ms Taylor said the disputed tenements were covered under a clause in an earlier partnership agreement.
“Although the list of assets did not name Hope Downs or East Angelas, this is dealt in clause 10 which stipulates activities previously conducted by partners including those that lost interest,” she said in court.
“The appearance of continuity is preserved.
“The partnership continues to follow the 1984 agreement.”
Mr Wright died in September 1985.
Ms Taylor told the court that Mr Hancock sent a letter to Mr Wright’s children, Michael Wright, Angela Bennett, and Julian Wright, to have a meeting after their father’s death.
She said during the meeting, which was recorded and transcribed, Mr Hancock and Michael Wright discussed the future of East Angelas where Mr Hancock would manage assets on behalf of the partnership as the surviving partner.
“This transcript is an important record that this area is for the partnership and pursued for the partnership and that HPPL be in charge of these areas,” Ms Taylor said in court.
The exploration licence over East Angelas was granted to Hancock Mining Limited in February 1989, the court was told.
DFD Rhodes has also launched proceedings against Hancock Prospecting, over royalties from some of the Hope Downs tenements the company claimed it previously occupied.
The trial continues.
