Royalties trial: More time for Rinehart children

Gina Rinehart’s eldest children John and Bianca have succeeded in arguing for more time to submit their replies, in the last week scheduled for the trial over billions of dollars of iron ore royalties.

Closing replies for the Supreme Court of Western Australia trial, which started in late July, are scheduled to wrap up tomorrow while Justice Jennifer Smith is expected to deliver her judgment next year.

The trial revolves around Pilbara tenements dubbed Hope Downs, home to successful mines co-owned by Hancock Prospecting and Rio Tinto under a joint venture agreement struck in 2005.

Wright Prospecting and DFD Rhodes have launched separate legal actions against Hancock Prospecting, over claims of royalties and ownership.

DFD Rhodes claims it is owed 1.25 per cent of royalties from the iron ore produced on Hope Downs by the Hancock-Wright partnership under a 1969 agreement.

Mrs Rinehart’s eldest children, John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart, joined the complex legal proceedings in 2016, over their own claims of ownership and stake in the assets.

A portion of John and Bianca’s submissions focused on the debt reconstruction they alleged was fraudulently done to boost Mrs Rinehart’s shareholding in the 1990s.

In court, John and Bianca’s lawyer Adam Hochroth claimed the Rhodes parties’ written replies to the debt reconstruction issue came too late and were substantially more developed than what was previously presented in court.

The court was told lawyers sent DFD Rhodes' written reply submissions over the issue, about 77 pages long, via email after 8pm last night.

Mr Hochroth sought for an opportunity to respond to Rhodes' submissions and proposed a long deadline until February 5, because of the Christmas period.

"Every other party in this case has had that opportunity. My client has been deprived of that opportunity because Rhodes has held back the real substance of their case on debt reconstruction," he told the court.

“With respect, this is not how a trial of this length and magnitude should be conducted.

"In our submission, the vast majority of the 48 pages of submissions concerning debt reconstruction served last night and what [was] delivered orally on Friday should be submitted in chief so my clients had enough time.

"Much of it is new, some of it is substantially more developed than the case was previously.

“If Rhodes wanted to say anything about it, they should’ve said it in chief. They should’ve said it a long time ago."

Speaking to the court, Justice Smith said it had been properly argued that John and Bianca did not have the full exposition of the Rhodes parties’ case over debt reconstruction until after closing.

“The trial program contemplated that Bianca and John will not be provided with a right of reply as it was anticipated that all parties had the opportunity to close their case before John and Bianca’s reply,” she said.

“Unfortunately, that did not occur, for that reason I would allow for Bianca and John to file written submission no longer than 30 pages.

“Given now it’s the Christmas period and trial is due to be completed, at least this stage of proceedings, on 14 December…If something comes out of that response filed on February 5 2024, Rhodes can then make applications for my chambers by sending an email to my chambers.”

Wright Prospecting barrister Julie Taylor is scheduled to make reply submissions tomorrow.