Gina Rinehart’s son says he wants to be a ‘united family’ in olive branch to mother after court ruling

Gina Rinehart’s son has said he wants to reunite his family after a landmark court case left a long-running feud over ownership of mines and companies unresolved.

The Western Australian supreme court on Wednesday found Rinehart’s children were at one point set to inherit 49% of her company and said their ownership claims should be determined in separate proceedings.

The broader judgment found Rinehart’s company, Hancock Prospecting, retained ownership of the mammoth Hope Downs iron ore project, defeating competing claims from her children and Wright Prospecting.

John Hancock, who has been embroiled in a two-decade feud with his mother, offered an olive branch while claiming partial victory in a statement on Wednesday following the ruling.

“Rather than continuing disagreements about the validity of Agreements from the 1980s, perceptions of events from decades ago or the pain this conflict has caused all parties over the years, I would much prefer to focus on the positive, and find a fair and reasonable way forward for the whole family,” he said.

“My primary focus for the next 21 days is an attempt at that reunification, and a return to the close family we had at various times in the last 50 years of my life.

“I hope we can finally put these events from decades ago behind us, and as a united family, celebrate and continue the contribution we have made to Australia.”

Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email

The family has fought for ownership of mines and companies now controlled by Gina Rinehart but set up by Lang Hancock, who is Rinehart’s father and John Hancock’s grandfather. John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart have claimed their grandfather wanted his grandchildren to have a greater stake.

Wednesday’s judgment found Gina Rinehart’s father had behaved fraudulently regarding the Hope Downs mine, voiding her children’s claimed ownership stake.

The judgment found some of Lang Hancock’s actions were “principally to avoid Gina Rinehart’s scrutiny” and were “clear and serious transgressions of ordinary standards of honest behaviour of a director, so as to amount to a dishonest and fraudulent design”.

“Lang Hancock treated [some companies] as if they were mere extensions of himself; his corporate vehicles with which he could do what he liked and extract whatever financial benefit he liked without regard to the best interests of [Hancock Prospecting],” Smith found.

John Hancock said the findings against his grandfather were “a difficult pill to swallow”.

“I know he was not perfect but for more than three decades, I have defended his legacy where appropriate – there is nobody left to do so,” he said.

Jay Newby, Gina Rinehart’s right-hand man and chief executive of Hancock Prospecting, declared victory against Rinehart’s children when the judgment was delivered.

“Over approximately four decades, John, Bianca [and companies Wright Prospecting and DFD Rhodes] took no risk and made no meaningful contribution to developing the Hope Downs and East Angelas iron ore mines and infrastructure,” Newby said.

Newby also claimed the court had not accepted what he described as “John and Bianca’s abusive claims of serious wrongdoing during the trial against Mrs Rinehart”.

The children have alleged Gina Rinehart had fraudulently rearranged the company’s affairs after Lang Hancock’s death, which Hancock Prospecting has denied.

Smith did not make a ruling, finding the children’s claims were irrelevant to the Hope Downs case and should be determined in an ongoing private arbitration.

However, she did determine a plan agreed by Gina Rinehart and her father in 1988 would have left 51% of the company’s shares to Rinehart and the other 49% to her children. Rinehart now controls 76.55% of the company and the children control 23.45%.

In his statement, John Hancock welcomed Smith’s findings.

“What 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 … and consistent with our case,” he said.

“Her Honour’s comments as above indicate that the June [1988] Agreement is binding, [a disputed] trust existed and reiterated the 49/51 split, and Gina Rinehart was appointed trustee with the duty to preserve its assets.”