The founding father of Western Australia’s iron ore business repeatedly and selfishly breached his fiduciary duties to his personal firm to learn him and his second spouse, a Perth court docket has heard.
Lawyer for Hancock Prospecting, Noel Hutley SC, instructed a mammoth civil trial within the West Australian Supreme Court that Mr Hancock shuffled tenements on the centre of the now-lucrative Hope Downs operation between his household corporations, HPPL and the Hancock Family Memorial Foundation, in a bid to withdraw “vast sums of money” to fund a lavish life-style.
The court docket heard it was these actions, the place Mr Hancock bought “mansions and the like”, that led to “unfortunate difficulties” between Mr Hancock and his inheritor, Gina Rinehart, who he actively tried to maintain firm business from as she started asking questions.
“He started diverting valuable opportunities and interests of HPPL away from HPPL,” Mr Hutley mentioned.
“That led to Mrs Rinehart … to raise questions about the conduct of HPPL, in particular, by Mr Lang Hancock.
”Lang Hancock’s response to that was to take away Mrs Rinehart from the directorship of HPPL, take away her as a member of (the muse) and take away her as a director of (the muse) to maintain her at midnight.”
The claims bookend two days of complicated proof in opposition to claims to the Hope Downs mining fortune by the kinfolk of Mr Hancock’s former business accomplice Peter Wright, who say they’re entitled to a proprietary and royalty stake in Hope Downs.
Mr Hutley argued it was the egocentric acts of Mr Hancock in his later years that, partially, shut down these claims to the fortune – in addition to these of his grandchildren John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart who’re additionally celebration to the case.
“Lang Hancock never acted with (Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd’s) interests in mind, nor even (Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd’s).
“(It was about) his own self interest and those of his then-wife Rose.
“There was never consent by shareholders to any of what Lang Hancock did and Lang Hancock himself came to realise shortly before his death, of the extent of his wrongdoing and commenced to undertake its reversal, but he died before that could be completed.”
“It pains us to say it was a patent breach of fiduciary duty on the part of Lang Hancock.”
In addition to the bombshell characterisation of Mr Hancock, Mr Hutley pointed to inner memos from WPPL contemplating whether or not to pursue bringing tenements in query into the partnership which he mentioned they selected to not do, and diary entries of the now-General Manager Chris McSweeney in 2002, which he argued went additional to dispute WPPL’s claims.
“That is in our respectful submission evidence which is … further devastating to anything which could conceivably be left to the claim made to East Angelas,” Mr Hutley mentioned.
While immediately’s listening to spent a lot time discussing the self curiosity of Mr Hancock, which his legal professionals mentioned was “at the behest” of Ms Porteous, Mr Hutley mentioned it was “but a short part” of a for much longer profession for Mr Hancock, who was dedicated to creating the Pilbara.
In an obvious reference to Mrs Rinehart, Mr Hutley mentioned his shopper took “no joy” in revisiting the occasions of the Eighties.
The Hancock celebration is because of full its opening submissions for the case tomorrow, with proof for John Hancock and Bianca Hancock set to start subsequent week.
The trial continues.
Source: www.perthnow.com.au
