The court case has been told of new documents involving the Rinehart holdings
Gina Rinehart’s lawyers have told a civil trial a newly found memo shows disputed assets belonged solely to Hancock Prospecting.
New documents have revealed what lawyers for Hancock Prospecting say is “powerful evidence” the son of Lang Hancock’s business partner did not consider Hope Downs 1-3 part of its partnership.
The West Australian Supreme Court heard for the first time of a memo which was addressed to the children of Peter Wright, and received by Michael Wright on 14 February 1989, which clearly showed tenements to part of the now-lucrative Pilbara mining operation belonged solely to Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (HPPL) at the time.
As proceedings wrapped up on Wednesday, Sydney barrister Noel Hutley SC was summarising the memo which he said evaluated assets owned by the partnership and HPPL.
He told the court it showed interests for the ‘Hanwright’ partnership and HPPL’s sole interests were clearly split on the page.
“Your Honour will notice that the memorandum distinguished between Hancock and Wright properties on the one hand and Hancock on the other,” Mr Hutley said.
“And that the tenements acquired after the 1987 agreements – being Hope Downs 2, Mystery and the Angelas – were Hancock properties.
“This is a memo that has obviously gone to the controlling mind of WPPL.
“One would expect if he, Mr Michael Wright, was of the view that these individuals that created this were in effect attributing ownership to HPPL of assets which he understood his company had a 50 per cent interest… you’d expect that there would be some response expressing dissatisfaction with what might be called a dangerous disregard of the proprietary interests of WPPL.
“(He) knew that HPPL was asserting 100 per cent interests.”
The memo from the late 1980s appears to be a central argument against the claim by the Wright family to the Hancock Dynasty in the mammoth civil trial.
Alluding to another document from 21 February that same year, Mr Hutley said it showed there was a consideration by the WPPL parties to include East Angelas – which now makes up part of the Hope Downs project – within the partnership.
He said while the proposal went nowhere, it was “powerful evidence that WPPL did not regard East Angelas as a partnership asset”.
“This is important because the predicate is that it was outside the partnership,” Mr Hutley said.
The trial which pits, among others, heirs of two of the State’s most prominent mining families against one another – is expected to define which parties are entitled to a stake of part of the Hope Downs assets.
More Coverage
While this week’s hearings have so far been dominated by lawyers for the HPPL party, the first and second week heard from lawyers John Rowland KC, Julie Taylor SC and Jeremy Stoljar SC who argued on behalf of their respective clients, WPPL and DFD Rhodes Pty Ltd, that Hancock’s party owed them billions of dollars’ worth of royalties and equity. Adding to the complexity of the case, Mrs Rinehart’s own children John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart are also party to the case as they continue protracted legal battles with their mother over their share of HPPL’s profits.
Mr Hutley will continue his week-long opening statements on Thursday.
The civil trial at Perth’s David Malcolm Justice Centre is expected to run until November.