Article by Tim Clark courtesy of the Western Australian.
Magnate’s lawyer says Wright family lawsuit purely about greed.
Gina Rinehart’s legal attack dog bared his teeth during the battle over billions of Pilbara mining dollars — saying a rival’s claim to some of the Hope Downs riches was being made out of “avarice”.
For years, Hancock Prospecting and its billionaire matriarch have fought off a claim by Wright Prospecting that it is entitled to part ownership and paid royalties from the mines in the Hamersley Range.
In WA’s Supreme Court on Tuesday, Noel Hutley — the experienced barrister leading Mrs Rinehart’s legal team — turned his attention to the main claim against Hope Downs.
And in a stinging summary of the Hancock view of the claim, Mr Hutley said the claim was motivated by one thing.
“(Wright Prospecting) have not paid a proverbial red cent to contribute towards the vast sums necessary for the exploration, maintenance and development of those licences,” Mr Hutley said. “My client has taken extraordinary commercial risks, and with extraordinary commercial acumen has turned (Hope Downs) into a valuable investment.
“And (Wright Prospecting) for reasons perfectly understandable — namely avarice — wish now to take part of.”
Despite the vast legal resources being employed to argue over the mineral resources, Mr Hutley said the defence was “straightforward”.
That in 1987 Lang Hancock made a deal with the family of his late business partner Peter Wright that allowed Hancock and his company to take up the licences to mine part of the Hope Downs project on their own.
Mr Hutley said that is what was done, and it does not owe the Wright family any slice of that ownership. In that same deal, he said, Wright Prospecting also relinquished any rights to royalties from Hope Downs.
“We say it means what it says. By that clause (Wright Prospecting) relinquished any right it had to those areas,” Mr Hutley said.
Turning defence into a legal attack, Mr Hutley then took on the arguments made by the Wright lawyers in the trial’s opening days.
Their case was “over complicated”, he said.
He said the wording of another clause in the 1987 agreement caused them an “intractable problem”.
And the Wright side’s attempt to explain that clause — which entitled “each partner . . . to prospect for minerals of any type . . . without being obliged to offer to the other partner any opportunity to participate” — was “impermissible redrafting”.
The argument, he said, “makes no sense”, created a “legal absurdity” and was “legally incoherent”.
“We embrace the proposition that (these areas) were a valuable opportunity, there is no doubt about it,” Mr Hutley said. “It was a valuable opportunity, that under the 1987 agreement was effectively allocated to us.”
The Hancock opening statements are set to last the rest of the week and the most stinging portions are likely when Mrs Rinehart’s lawyers address the claim of her children against her.
Mrs Rinehart, pictured, says that claim is also without merit. The trial continue
