The Washington Supreme Court has denied Gina Rinehart’s children, John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart, their request for access to dozens of documents and correspondence between their mother and her lawyers dating back decades.
The brothers were trying to get their hands on documents to boost their case in a long-running dispute with Ms Rinehart, in which they claim mining assets inherited by their iron ore pioneer grandfather Lang Hancock belonged to them.
But Rinehart and Hancock Prospecting claimed the documents were “privileged” because they contained legal advice and were therefore “free of bias.”
Mrs. Rinehart’s children had argued that their mother and Hancock Prospecting could not maintain the privilege because it had not been established or had been waived.
In her decision, Judge Natalie Whitby said his claim of privilege could not be sustained on multiple grounds and was without merit; She also criticized the couple for taking up court time.
The Washington Supreme Court has denied Bianca Rinehart (pictured) access to documents in a long-running dispute with her mother.
Australian businessman John Hancock is pictured in Melbourne. He is the son of Gina Rinehart and grandson of the late mining magnate Lang Hancock.
“The hearing of the applications lasted six days,” he said.
‘The book of sight consisted of just over 6,000 pages. The parties were referred to approximately 160 authorities.
“To say that the resources devoted to these privilege requests were grossly disproportionate to the issues in dispute is an understatement.”
The ruling came amid a long-running dispute between some of Western Australia’s wealthiest mining families.
Last year, a case against Hancock Prospecting was heard in the WA Supreme Court for 51 days, brought by the families of Lang Hancock’s business partner Peter Wright and associate Don Rhodes.
The Wright family launched legal action in 2010 to claim billions of dollars in royalties and mining assets against Hancock Prospecting and to claim a share of ownership and royalty rights against its Pilbara operations at the Hope Downs mines.
In 2013, the Rhode family joined the action with a claim for 1.25 percent of royalties from Hope Downs production.
Gina Rinehart (pictured) and Hancock Prospecting claimed the documents were “privileged” because they contained legal advice and were therefore “without bias”.
Then, in 2016, Ms. Rinehart’s own children joined the action, claiming they owned a 50 percent stake in the Hope Downs mines.
To make matters more complex, attorneys for the Rinehart children have argued that the Wright and Rhodes parties’ claims were baseless.
They said Wright Prospecting had previously received the full legal value of its rights to Hope Downs, adding that the 1969 agreement did not in fact give DFD Rhodes any rights to any of the Hope Downs properties.
The case centered on royalties from Hancock’s Hope Downs mines and alleged agreements made with other mining entities that the embattled families said entitled them to a portion of those royalties.
A ruling has not yet been handed down in that case.