Lang Hancock’s legacy defended as iron feud drags on

John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart have defended the conduct of their late grandfather as part of their efforts to wrest billions of dollars in assets from their mother.

John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart outside the WA Supreme Court. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Sharon Smith

John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart have attempted to defend the conduct of their late grandfather, iron ore magnate Lang Hancock, as part of their efforts to wrest billions of dollars of assets from their mother Gina Rinehart.

The siblings were again in the gallery of Western Australia’s Supreme Court on Tuesday as they listened to their legal team, led by Christopher Withers SC, continue to argue as to why the lucrative Hope Downs and East Angelas iron ore deposits should belong to them, rather than their mother.

Tuesday’s closing statements also presented an opportunity for them to speak up for Lang Hancock, whose stewardship of his eponymous iron ore empire during his final years had been savaged by Mrs Rinehart’s lawyers earlier in the trial.

The Supreme Court is assessing just who should be entitled to the iron ore assets, with Wright Prospecting – now run by the descendants of Lang’s business partner Peter Wright – also arguing that it should have interests in the projects.

Mr Withers told the court that a central argument advanced during the case by Mrs Rinehart’s team – that Lang Hancock had breached his fiduciary duties during his final years – was incorrect.

Instead, he said Lang’s decision to pursue Hope Downs through Hancock Mining, or HML, rather than through the Hancock Prospecting (HPPL) entity in which Mrs Rinehart was a shareholder, reflected his daughter’s opposition to Lang’s plans rather than any sort of sinister plot to deceive her.

Lang conceived a plan to export ore from Hope Downs to Romania as part of an ultimately successful effort to convince the state government to award HML the Hope Downs tenements. Mrs Rinehart, Mr Withers said, had written to her father saying that the plan was “reckless” and “possibly ruinous” and wanted no part of the efforts to build a mining company.

Mr Withers said the argument that Lang was acting dishonestly to avoid Mrs Rinehart’s scrutiny and funnel money to his wife and former housekeeper Rose Porteous was not borne out by the evidence showing that he continued to keep Mrs Rinehart informed of his efforts.

“Why would someone trying to misappropriate the assets to avoid scrutiny then tell the victim of this alleged misappropriation in effect which assets he’s taking and what he proposes? This is the real flaw of this argument,” Mr Withers said

The iron ore pioneer’s decision to remove his daughter from the board of HPPL, Mr Withers said, was done not to keep her in the dark, but was a result of Mrs Rinehart’s behaviour.

He said Mrs Rinehart had taken her late mother Margaret’s will to the United States in an effort to prevent Lang being granted probate over her estate, which would have given him control over another third of Hancock Prospecting. He said Mrs Rinehart had also tried unsuccessfully to have Rose Porteous deported and had hired a man to spy on her.

“[Mrs Rinehart’s removal from the Hancock Prospecting board] had nothing to do with trying to shield his activities from scrutiny. It was because of the way she was behaving and insisting that she had an entitlement to 33% of Hope Margaret’s shareholding,” Mr Withers said.

Hope Downs is now home to multiple iron ore mines in joint venture with mining giant Rio Tinto.