In a judgment spanning more than 1,600 pages, Justice Jennifer Smith of the WA Supreme Court laid down the law on a showdown between three of Australia’s legendary mining dynasties.

Defendant Hancock Prospecting and its subsidiary, Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd, backed by Gina Rinehart, attempted to fight off multiple claims to revenue from the multi-billion dollar Hope Downs operation, a vast iron ore project consisting of multiple mines co-owned by Rio Tinto in the Pilbara region of WA.

Hancock Prospecting was ultimately unsuccessful in their defence, as HH determined that they are to pay millions of royalties to the multiple plaintiffs.

The proceedings were a mammoth effort, involving two separate trials which examined in detail events occurring between 1967 and 2005, with more than 4,000 documents tendered as exhibits, and 51 days of hearing.

The plaintiff of the first of these proceedings (which in itself consisted of two consolidated actions) was Wright Prospecting, which argued that they were entitled to equal shares in assets from the original “Hanwright” partnership between Lang Hancock (Gina’s father) and his schoolfriend and prospector Peter Wright. The company is backed by billionaire heiress Angela Bennett and the two children of Peter’s oldest son, Michael Wright.

For further background on this profoundly unhappy dispute, see Holding onto Hope: Gina Rinehart’s Bleak House.

In her judgment released this morning (Wednesday, April 15), Justice Smith ruled that Wright Prospecting had successfully made out its contractual claim for 50% of past and future royalties paid by Hamersley (a Rio-Tinto subsidiary) to Hancock Prospecting for ore produced and sold from sections 1-7 of Hope Downs. However, Wright Prospecting’s additional claim of proprietary interest in the exploration licences failed.

HH diplomatically stated:

“It could be found that Wright Prospecting won half of its case and lost half of its case.” 

The second proceedings were brought by the estate of another early prospector, Don Rhodes, and his associated company DFD Rhodes. They sought a smaller, but not insignificant, share of approximately 1.25% of ore from reserves listed in a certain draft agreement.

Rhodes was similarly partially successful. Although they failed in their contractual claim, HH found they were entitled to a royalty payable on the Hancock parties’ share of the Hopes Down Product in respect of iron ore produced from sections 3-7 of Hope Downs (formerly the East Angelas), calculated at the rate specified in cl 5C of the 1969 Agreement.

In response to the judgment, Hancock executive director John Newby has stated that any amounts payable …

“… is a shared responsibility with our partner Rio Tinto, who have a further royalty contribution in this regard, which will lessen Hancock’s contribution.” 

Rinehart’s two eldest children, John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart, were also defendants to both proceedings, having joined in 2016, some six years after litigation initially commenced. Their involvement follows their separate legal battle against their mother regarding the management of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust.

Here, however, their arguments were unsuccessful, HH finding that they “failed at the first hurdle”.

Sixteen years of litigation is hardly enough – further proceedings are likely.

WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD -v- HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD [No 26] [2026] WASC 101