Details of the family feud between Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart, and her three oldest children have been reported after a court rejected her bid for privacy.
Her children claim the billionaire threatened them with bankruptcy if they did not give her full control of the multi-billion-dollar family trust, according to court documents.
Ms Rinehart said they were not suited to become trustees for “many reasons”.
The lawsuit was filed on 5 September.
The dispute revolves around the Hope Margaret Hancock trust set up by Lang Hancock, Ms Rinehart’s father, for her four children.
John Hancock, Bianca Rinehart and Hope Welker want to replace their 58-year-old mother as trustee. Their youngest sister, Ginia, has sided with their mother, saying that the case filed by her siblings “is motivated entirely by greed”.
For months, Ms Rinehart has tried to keep the details private, but a court rejected her request last week.
- BBC News
10 Comments
DEM I thought Jules Verne had already pegged out a claim there? Anyway, that last pic with the sailor suits: it reminds me of Hong Kong for some reason. Can you tell from the original?
This is the second worst Family Feud ever.
(the worst)
There is nothing quite like dirty laundry on this scale…
Any estimation as to what this spectacle , all about tax avoidance, one way or the other, is costing us actual taxpayers? As in supreme court costs etc.
Can’t tell KVD but Hong Kong was also my assumption. It may have appeared in Australian Resources & Investment Magazine sometime last year. I nabbed it from JoNova.
The rational one seems to be the younger daughter. Mum has clearly a better touch than Grandfather, why not leave it with her?
Depends what the terms of the trust deed are, L, and whether she’s entitled to do what she’s purporting to do. (I don’t know the answer to these questions – would need much more info).
She’s lucky one of her kids is on her side; otherwise they might all wind it up pursuant to the rule in Saunders v Vautier.
LE
S v V doesn’t apply because GR is herself a beneficiary as to about 17% (or some such number).
L:
Question of the trust is separate to management of Hancock Prospecting. Basic proposition is that the 3 older children are sick of being subjected to GR’s use of her power of appointment. If the trust is broken up or they get control of it, at least they move up the ladder to being minority shareholders in Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited.
Marcellous – ah, there you go – she was protected anyway!
It’s extraordinary how nasty family fights over money get: or maybe it’s not so extraordinary. Money gets mixed up in claims of affection.
M & LE: That does make more sense.