Australia\u2019s richest person is reeling after a landmark court decision found her company must pay royalties worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a rival mining dynasty.<\/p>\n
Gina Rinehart, a multibillionaire with political connections in both the White House and the Australian parliament, has been described by members of the US conservative movement as \u201ca female Donald Trump\u201d<\/a>. The 72-year-old, who inherited her father\u2019s iron ore empire in Australia\u2019s Pilbara region, has fought multiple claims against the family company Hancock Prospecting that were first launched in 2010.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, in the Western Australian supreme court, Justice Jennifer Smith found that Wright Prospecting was entitled to its claim<\/a> for a half share of royalties coming from one of the region\u2019s largest projects \u2013 Hope Downs.<\/p>\n Hope Downs is a joint venture between Rio Tinto and Hancock Prospecting and exports about 45m tonnes of iron ore annually from Australia\u2019s north-west each year.<\/p>\n But Hancock Prospecting had a partial victory, with the court rejecting Wright Prospecting\u2019s claim for an equity stake in other mining assets.<\/p>\n The dispute harks back to a business partnership struck in the 1950s by mining prospectors Lang Hancock and Peter Wright. The pair had been school friends and together established a company called Hanwright which was responsible for pegging out vast tenements of iron ore-rich deposits in the region\u2019s Hamersley Range.<\/p>\n The judgment<\/a> \u2013 which ran to more than 1,650 pages \u2013 noted that the judge was required to undertake a \u201clengthy, diverse, and detailed reconstruction of events that occurred between about 1967 to 2005\u201d. This relied on business records from the time that were largely written by people who were no longer alive to testify.<\/p>\n Smith presided over a 51-day trial in 2023 that saw multiple parties represented and more than 4,000 documents submitted.<\/p>\n John Hancock and Gina Rinehart speak to the media in 2002. Photograph: Andy Tyndall\/AAP<\/p>\n As the case ballooned in complexity after the first claim in 2010, two of Gina Rinehart\u2019s children were also enjoined to proceedings as part of a separate dispute<\/a> with their mother regarding their inheritance.<\/p>\n However, the court rejected the claim<\/a> from John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart for an equity share of Hope Downs, saying it \u201cfailed at the first hurdle\u201d because the tenements belonged to Hancock Prospecting. Smith upheld Rinehart\u2019s defence that the assets had been wrongly moved by her father, Lang Hancock, in breach of his duties to the company.<\/p>\n Smith, however, confined her findings to the Hope Downs matter, leaving other parts of the family dispute \u2013 including the children\u2019s claim to a greater share of the company \u2013 to a separate court-ordered arbitration.<\/p>\n John Hancock said the judge\u2019s finding regarding his grandfather was a \u201cdifficult pill to swallow\u201d, however, he claimed he was buoyed up by Smith\u2019s remarks about the corporate structure of Hancock Prospecting.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat we did receive from Her Honour were findings and remarks which are in line with my initial approach to my mother Gina over two decades ago, regarding our family company corporate structure \u2026 and consistent with our case.\u201d<\/p>\n The children argue they are entitled to a 49% share of the company under an agreement struck in 1988 between Gina Rinehart<\/a> and Lang Hancock. Rinehart now controls 76.55% of the company and her children control 23.45%.<\/p>\n