When Georgina ‘Gina’ Hope Rinehart (reputedly Australia’s richest woman) decided that she didn’t want climate change mitigation addressed by any national government and also decided to buy a slice of the national media pie as well, she set herself up as a person of interest to the average voter as well the tabloid press.
So when three of her four children took her to court she attempted to suppress the details.
Unfortunately for But liddle ol’ me is really a very private person Rinehart she has been less than successful and finally may have to endure us all knowing more of the Hancock family’s soiled laundry than she might like if the High Court rejects her appeal next Friday.
Ah well, at least she can cry on the shoulder of her good friend Christopher Monckton.
Meanwhile, here is part of an intriguing judgement handed down by the NSW Supreme Court in October 2011:
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 3. An order that the Defendant as Trustee of the trust established by the Deed of Settlement made 27 December 1988 by Langley George Hancock (" The Trust ") provide to the Plaintiffs:
(a) the accounts of the Trust for the years 1992 to date;
(b) the accounts of Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited for the years 1992 to date.
4. An order pursuant to s 90 of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA) or in the Court's equitable jurisdiction varying the Trust Deed by splitting the trust into separate trusts with one trust as to Gina Hope Rinehart's 17.7% interest in the ordinary shares and the cumulative special shares, as referred to in clause 4 of the Trust Deed (" the First Trust "); and a further trust as to the residue of the trust property in favour of the children of Gina Hope Rinehart (" the Second Trust ");
5. An order in the Court's inherent equitable jurisdiction removing Gina Rinehart as trustee of the Second Trust.
6. A declaration that the Defendant has misconducted herself in the administration of the Trust within the meaning of s 77(2)(b) of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA).
2 comments:
"Richest woman" - methinks not. As far as what really matters in this life, she's a pauper. Maybe she can comfort from her billions on her deathbed, because she won't have the love of her children to ease the journey we all take.
So Gina Rinehart extends the life of a family trust set up by her late father without telling the beneficiaries. Then tells them they must agree to a new deed of trust with her as sole trustee if they want to avoid financial ruin.
She doesn't supply them with the legal or financial advice she says she has. The Court eventually rules that she be removed as Trustee and states she has misconducted in her role. She appeals the judgement and tries to continue to suppress further details even after the High Court has ruled against her application for suppression.
How much money is being spent by all parties to this frace?
Post a Comment