Gina Rinehart’s eldest children have shown up to observe the Supreme Court trial disputing the ownership of assets under their grandfather’s mining empire.
Gina Rinehart’s eldest children have shown up to observe the Supreme Court trial disputing the ownership of assets under their grandfather’s mining empire.
John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart unexpectedly attended the Supreme Court of Western Australia trial over iron ore royalties, while their lawyer Christopher Withers SC started his closing submissions today.
While Bianca had attended the court proceedings before, this is the first time John made an appearance since the trial started in July.
In his closing submissions, Mr Withers today told the court Peter Wright’s descendants sued because they regretted not taking part in Lang Hancock’s vision for the Pilbara, which has yielded lucrative mining operations with Rio Tinto.
Wright Prospecting (WPPL) started legal action against Hancock Prospecting (HPPL) more than a decade ago, claiming it was owed royalties for Pilbara tenements known as Hope Downs and part ownership of some of the reserves, formerly named East Angelas.
The state government granted mining leases over the tenements to Hancock Mining Limited in the late 1980s and the sites have been co-owned with Rio Tinto since 2005.
HPPL has been run by Mrs Rinehart, Lang Hancock’s daughter, since her father’s death in 1992.
John Hancock sat in court while his lawyer made closing submissions. Photo: Nadia Budihardjo
Two of Mrs Rinehart children, John and Bianca, are disputing their own stake in Hancock and claimed their grandfather put the assets in the family trust as a gift for them and their two younger siblings, Hope Welker and Ginia Rinehart.
The children joined the legal proceedings as defendants in 2016.
DFD Rhodes, founded by another mining pioneer Don Rhodes, launched a separate legal action against HPPL over 1.25 per cent of royalties from the iron ore produced by the Hancock-Wright partnership on Hope Downs.
Mr Withers told the court that it should reject the additional claims (by the Wright and Rhodes parties) to Hope Downs, which John and Bianca claimed were assets Mrs Rinehart wrongfully transferred out of Hancock Family Memorial Foundation trust.
He said the tenements were always beneficially held by Hancock Mining Limited until they were stolen by HPPL and Mrs Rinehart.
“Lang created the trust, the controlling interest of HFMF, meaning that he intended for my client and their siblings to be able to control the income generated by [Hancock Mining Limited],” Mr Withers said in court.
“That is what he wanted for the grandchildren.
“The other party, WPPL, made zero contribution to this.
“The only thing Peter Wright did was cause Lang stress because he was undecided whether or not he wanted to develop the mine.
"We say WPPL’s interests in these tenements never arose in the first place."
HPPL lawyer Noel Hutley previously told the court that the company's founder, Mr Hancock, had transferred the shares on his own account and in his pursuit to avoid paying taxes.
Speaking to the court, Mr Withers said Mr Hancock offered Wright Prospecting the chance to work together on the Hope Downs mining prospects in the 1980s, but was rejected.
“This case is just a case of regret by those that now control WPPL,” he said.
“What he was doing because he was an honourable man, was saying 'obviously we have history with these tenements; this is how we’re going to do it'.
“That’s passed and that’s why we say it’s a case of regret. They regret passing on that opportunity.”
The trial continues.
