By Jesinta Burton
Mining pioneer Lang Hancock penned a letter threatening to remove his daughter Gina Rinehart from the family empire for “disloyalty” after she allegedly tried to have his new wife Rose Porteous deported, and left the country with her mother’s will.
The letter was read in the West Australian Supreme Court by lawyers for Rinehart’s children Bianca and John Hancock, who have joined a multibillion-dollar court battle for a stake in Hancock Prospecting’s iron ore mines.
Bianca Rinehart enters court flanked by lawyers, with Christopher Withers SC on the left.Credit: AFR
Lawyer Christopher Withers produced letters from 1985 he said laid bare the declining relationship between Lang Hancock and his daughter, and showed her removal as a director of the empire was the product of her own conduct.
In them, Withers said Gina referred to Porteous, who Lang had wed that same year, as an “oriental concubine” and a “prostitute” before berating Lang for the way he was administering the company.
Lang accused Gina of going to the Department of Immigration claiming the family company had paid wages to a person without a functional visa, which he said was disloyal to the family and a breach of her duty as a director.
“This is your last warning,” he wrote.
“I will terminate your directorship in Hancock Prospecting because of your foolishness.”
The court was told Lang and Gina’s relationship became more strained when she took off to the United States with her mother’s will to prevent Lang from getting probate over her estate.
The submissions came hours after Bianca made a surprise appearance at the court, sitting in the back of the public gallery as Withers called on Australia’s richest woman to get in the witness box over claims she defrauded her children.
Bianca arrived flanked by lawyers on Monday, the fourth week of a civil trial stemming from a 2010-launched lawsuit which pits mining magnate Gina against the descendants of Peter Wright (her father Lang Hancock’s schoolfriend-turned-business partner) and the company of Pilbara pioneer Don Rhodes.
But she is also fending off a claim by her eldest children, who joined the lawsuit in 2016 amid allegations their grandfather intended to leave Hope Downs to them.
Withers told the court his clients had proof Lang left mining assets, including Hope Downs, in the family trust for his grandchildren – only for Gina to take them back in a “calculated” fraud.
Hancock Prospecting claims Lang embarked on a textbook breach of fiduciary duty by removing the assets from the company to siphon money out of it and Gina was simply fulfilling her father’s dying wish to undo those transactions.
But Withers said Lang’s pursuit of Hope Downs via mining entity Hancock Mining Limited, rather than Hancock Prospecting, was one designed to shield it from risks Gina had flagged herself as the pair’s relationship soured.
Contrary to Hancock Prospecting’s claims Gina was kept in the dark about her father’s elaborate scheme as the relationship deteriorated, the children’s lawyer Withers told the court he had proof she was informed every step of the way.
And he claimed Gina devised a plan to regain control over the lucrative mining assets after her father’s death in 1992, engaging in an “egregious” fraud until 1995 intended to destroy the wealth of the trust left to her children.
Bianca Rinehart and her brother John Hancock are fighting their mother in court.Credit: Ben Rushton
“The total destruction of the trust was made by senior executives of Hancock Prospecting acting at Gina’s direction,” Withers said.
When John found out about his grandfather’s intentions for the assets, the court was told he quizzed his mother about how they came to be in Hancock Prospecting’s possession only to be met with a “barrage of lies”, “threats” and “deception”.
Withers also questioned why Gina was absent from the civil trial.
“Where is Gina? She is very much alive and able to give evidence as to these events,” he said.
“She has said my client’s allegations are baseless, but won’t come to court and allow herself to be cross-examined in this case.
“The evidence demonstrates Gina knew exactly what Lang was doing and [Hancock Prospecting] cannot prove its allegations, and therefore answer our case, without calling Gina.”
Withers also took aim at Wright Prospecting’s claim to an interest in Hope Downs, insisting their case was the product of remorse and that Peter Wright and his descendants regretted not taking the risk to invest in Hope Downs’ development.
This is the first time inside details of the children’s stoush with their mother, previously shielded by private arbitration, have made their way into open court, despite the parties inking a series of deeds not to air the claims publicly.
Hancock Prospecting’s lawyer Noel Hutley, SC, last week dubbed the children’s case “an utterly fruitless pursuit of the impossible”.
Critically, Hutley highlighted Lang spent his final days attempting to reverse it, overhauling his will to return the mining assets to Hancock Prospecting and cut Porteous out.
Hutley also lashed the pair for holding off on bringing the legal action, producing emails from John Hancock he claimed proved the children held off on suing until after the asset could be developed for his benefit.
Wright Prospecting claims it is entitled to a portion of the royalties from Hope Downs, which is home to four operational mines owned by Hancock Prospecting and Rio Tinto, under a 1980s partnership deed.
Rhodes’ family company, DFD Rhodes, insists he also played a critical role in discovering the mammoth iron ore deposit, which entitled him to a 1.25 per cent stake in its proceeds under a separate 1969 agreement.
Hancock Prospecting and its executive chair Rinehart maintain the Hope Downs assets and royalties belong to them, insisting they put in the work to recover them and invest in their development after they were confiscated by the state government.
The case continues.
Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter here.