Richard Pratt’s love child’s win in fight for his billion-dollar fortune

The love child of late packaging billionaire Richard Pratt has scored a win in her battle to claim part of his family’s multibillion-dollar fortune.

The love child of late packaging magnate Richard Pratt has been given the green light to continue her fight for a slice of his family’s multi-billion dollar fortune.

Paula Hitchcock is embroiled in a battle with her half-siblings, billionaire Visy boss Anthony Pratt, Heloise Waislitz and Fiona Geminder, to prove she is legally entitled to a portion of the Pratt Family Trust.

The 27-year-old is asking the NSW Supreme Court to declare her a “discretionary object” of the family’s vast fortune and to nullify a deed of exclusion that cut off her inheritance as a child.

Richard Pratt’s love child, Paula Hitchcock, is fighting to be included in the Pratt Family Trust. Picture: NewsWire / John Appleyard

Ms Hitchcock was born in 1997 as a result of an extramarital affair between Richard Pratt, founder of packaging company Visy, and socialite turned horse trainer Shari-Lea Hitchcock.

Ms Hitchcock has maintained she is entitled to a share of the Trust because she is Mr Pratt’s child and was always acknowledged as such by her father and his wife Jeanne.

However, Anthony Pratt and his siblings argue the case should be dismissed because she was not a child of both their parents and she has failed to substantiate her case.

On Wednesday, Justice Michael Meek granted Ms Hitchcock permission to file an amended statement of claim “in part” and to “re-plead certain aspects of the claim” in a specified manner.

In particular, he allowed the 27-year-old to amend her claim that she fits the criteria of a “child” of the Pratt family as outlined in the Trust deed.

Ms Hitchcock argued she was always accepted as a member of the family by Mr and Mrs Pratt, who she claims provided a bedroom for her at their houses and regularly invited her to attend the weekly family Shabbat.

Richard Pratt with Sydney socialite Shari-Lea Hitchcock and their daughter Paula Hitchcock. Picture: Facebook

She submitted Mrs Pratt had provided care, support, and financial aid to her over the years, and the couple had listed her as their financial dependent in 2007.

However, the Pratt siblings labelled the argument as “hopeless” and contended their mother’s acceptance of Ms Hitchcock didn’t “convert” her into Mrs Pratt’s child.

Justice Meek disagreed that the assertion was “obviously untenable” and allowed Ms Hitchcock to amend her statement of claim.

“I reject the siblings’ submission that there is no rational basis to conclude that (Ms Hitchcock) being acknowledged by Mr Pratt as a member of his family implies that she could be considered as a ‘child’ of Mrs Pratt,” he determined.

“What seems to be relatively clear is that the definition of ‘child’ … is cast in broad terms that may include a child who is not the biological child of both Mr Pratt and Mrs Pratt”.

Yet Ms Hitchcock suffered a blow to her bid to stake her claim to a payment equal to those made by the Trust to each of her half-siblings since she was excluded in 2001.

Ms Hitchcock was supported in court by her husband Nassib Thoumi. Picture: NewsWire / John Appleyard

Justice Meek struck out her claim for equitable compensation after deeming it “unarguable”.

“Even if the plaintiff is able to prove that the trustee acted in breach of duty by failing to give real and genuine consideration to appointing income to her over a number of years, that does not necessarily mean that she has suffered any quantifiable ‘loss’,” he concluded.

While Ms Hitchcock cannot pursue “‘substantial’ relief” through equitable compensation, Justice Meek clarified that “the remaining declaratory and other relief sought would still provide some forensic utility to her going forward”.

He also refused to allow Ms Hitchcock to amend her reply to documents tendered by her half-siblings and the Trust and directed that “part of the existing reply is struck out”.

The portion to be removed includes an allegation of fraud or dishonesty related to the alleged actions of the trustee in relation to her exclusion from the Trust when she was three years old.

Justice Meek found “the alleged breaches to which the allegations relate cannot give rise to an inference of fraud or dishonesty” but allowed Ms Hitchcock to amend the wording.

She has been granted leave to continue her bid to claim a slice of the Pratt family Trust. Picture: NewsWire / John Appleyard

Ms Hitchcock was beaming after her court win. Picture: NewsWire / John Appleyard

He noted this was Ms Hitchcock’s sixth attempt at formulating her claim to the Trust, as the matter has continued to languish before the court for more than two years.

The 27-year-old was accompanied by her husband, Nassib Thoumi, on Wednesday and left the courthouse smiling.

When her father died in 2009, Ms Hitchcock was named in his will as the beneficiary of a small fortune in assets.

She reportedly inherited more than $22 million in shares, in addition to the house in Watsons Bay in which she’d been raised and a property on the NSW South Coast.

Originally published as Richard Pratt’s love child’s win in fight for his billion-dollar fortune