The lawyer for the eldest kids of mining magnate Gina Rinehart has made explosive claims in his opening tackle to the courtroom within the civil case towards Australia’s richest lady, claiming she’s dedicated fraud.
Christopher Withers SC is representing John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart within the Western Australian Supreme Court.
Mr Withers instructed the courtroom that Gina Rinehart purposely shifted property between corporations beneath the Hancock Group identify with a view to hold these property out of the Hancock household belief, with allegations Ms Rinehart dedicated “deliberate fraud”.
“We don’t use the word fraud lightly,” Mr Withers instructed Justice Jennifer Smith, “but we say the evidence of fraud by Gina against her children is overwhelming.”
Ms Rinehart’s kids are amongst quite a lot of entities suing Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (HPPL), of which Gina Rinehart is government chairman, claiming they’re entitled to a share of mining royalties from as much as six mining tenements identified collectively as Hope Downs.
Noel Huntley SC, for HPPL, spent his opening tackle the earlier week claiming Gina Rinehart’s father, and HPPL founder Lang Hancock, had a number of Pilbara mining tenements held in belief and took steps to hide this from Gina.
But Mr Withers instructed the courtroom that Mr Hancock “kept Gina informed at every turn”.
Mr Withers additionally criticised Gina Rinehart for not giving proof within the David Malcolm Justice Centre courtroom.
“She won’t come to court to allow herself to be cross-examined about the critical matters central to this case,” Mr Withers stated.
“Gina knew what Lang was doing because he told her … when Your Honour sees those documents, Your Honour will note the significance of these documents and in HPPL not calling on her to give evidence.”
Mr Withers spent a lot of Monday morning’s listening to detailing the rifts showing within the relationship between Lang Hancock and business accomplice Peter Wright, founding father of Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd, within the lead-up to Mr Wright’s demise in September 1985.
Mr Hancock himself would die in lower than seven years, with Mr Withers telling the courtroom his closing years have been spent arguing with Gina and her then husband Frank Rinehart over growing a mine.
Mr Hancock wished to develop a mine on the Hope Downs tenements, close to the mining city of Newman, so the WA authorities on the time would grant him additional exploration licences.
The authorities would solely grant the licence if a brand new mine was developed and new abroad markets for iron ore have been discovered.
However, Gina and Mr Rinehart have been strongly against this plan, eager to unload HPPL property in alternate for ongoing mining royalties.
“Lang discovered the mining areas in the Pilbara, he was the driving force behind the decision to build a mine, which Gina was against,” Mr Withers stated.
“If Gina had gotten her way, HPPL would have been dissolved in 1986.”
He instructed the courtroom that Ms Rinehart dedicated fraud and breached her obligation of care after her father’s 1992 demise by giving herself extra shareholder management over HPPL and awarding herself shares belonging to her kids and hiding this from them – significantly John Hancock.
“Ultimately, Gina used entities in control of the assets … and in doing so breached her duties in terms of the (Hancock family) trust,” Mr Withers instructed the courtroom.
Mr Withers alleges Gina Rinehart moved the property round corporations beneath the Hancock Group umbrella in a “classic family group” scenario.
He instructed the courtroom that Gina and Lang argued over management of HPPL proper up till his demise.
“Lang was not prepared to give Gina 33 per cent of HPPL … Gina was not prepared to take no for an answer,” Mr Withers stated.
“Lang was simply not prepared to give Gina everything she wanted, which was everything.”
Bianca Rinehart was current within the courtroom on Monday, which marked the beginning of the fourth week of proceedings.
The case continues.
Source: www.perthnow.com.au
