Hancock 'nitpicking' a Rhodes roadblock
Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting has been accused of "vexatious nitpicking" over its failure to hand over to the Wright family its interest in the giant Rhodes Ridge iron ore project after losing its last avenue of appeal seven months ago.
The return bout is the latest move in an ongoing brawl between descendants of the State's most influential prospectors, Lang Hancock and Peter Wright. The two families having spent tens of millions of dollars over the past 17 years fighting over the spoils of the Pilbara discoveries made by the lifelong friends.
Wright Prospecting returned to the Supreme Court yesterday seeking enforcement of orders issued in 2011, when Mrs Rinehart lost the first round of her fight to retain a 25 per cent interest in the 5.3 billion-tonne iron ore project.
Rio Tinto owns half the resource and Wright Prospecting 25 per cent.
Hancock Prospecting lost an appeal against that decision a year later, and the High Court rejected its final avenue of appeal last September.
But seven months later, the transfer of Hancock's 25 per cent stake in Rhodes Ridge is still to be finalised.
The Supreme Court was told yesterday the two parties were in dispute over the proper order in which Hancock would give necessary consents to the transfer of the mining and exploration tenements, and the amendment of the State Agreement covering development of Rhodes Ridge.
Wright argued its rival needed to provide written consent for the transfers before the State Government and Rio Tinto were asked to amend their own documentation.
Lawyers for Hancock told the court the company believed that was unnecessary, and the consent from Hancock should come after it had seen the documents signed off by the other stakeholders.
Acting for Wright Prospecting, Allan Myers told the court Hancock had adopted a consistent position on the dispute - that it would not co-operate to carry out the orders of the court.
"We've had months of vexatious nitpicking in an attempt to escape the responsibilities the respondent has," Mr Myers said.
"Somehow the idea has taken root in the minds of the people that control Hancock Prospecting that they don't have to do anything. That is wrong. The consent process must start with them."
Lawyers for Hancock Prospecting said the company accepted it was obliged to co-operate but the original orders laid out a staged approach for the handover it was endeavouring to comply with.
Concerns about a potential GST and tax liability for Hancock over the transfer of its stake also emerged. Wright Prospecting launched its claim in early 1997, before the introduction of the GST, and lawyers for Mrs Rinehart told the court Hancock would be keen to ensure the wording of the transfer documents minimised any potential tax liabilities.
Mr Myers said that should not be a consideration. "You wrongly held onto this interest for 17 years," he said. "If that exposes you to some tax liability, that is the consequence of holding onto it for so long."
Justice Rene Le Miere reserved his decision.
