Whatever happens, an appeal or a settlement, 2015 is shaping up as a watershed year for Gina Rinehart. Credit:Bloomberg Justice Brereton said: "Mrs. Rinehart has demonstrated that she is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to retain control, directly or indirectly, of the Trust, and that she is capable of exerting enormous pressure and great influence to do so". In particular, he said her past conduct in relation to the trust's capital gains tax issue indicated she would be likely to exhert considerable pressure and influence on any independent trustee appointed by the court. In 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers gave Mrs Rinehart legal adivce that the beneficiaries would not have to pay capital gains tax if the trust vested. However, Mrs Rinehart "manipulated" the top-tier financial services firm into preparing advice that her children would have to pay, and the amount would be so large as to bankrupt them. Bianca was told she faced a $142 million bill. Outside the court Mr Hancock said given the findings regarding PwC and Hancock Prospecting CFO Jay Newby over the capital gains tax issue, "more action will be taken".



"They should apologise for their extraordinary misconduct in this matter- I will be bringing it up with the Chartered Accountants association in due course. I hope nobody else needs to live through being threatened with bankruptcy for no reason, as these people have done," Mr Hancock said.

Illustration: Cathy Wilcox Further, Mrs Rinehart repeatedly sought to have the case stayed, referred to arbitration, kept out of the public domain, going as far as the High Court. She also tried to convince her children to withdraw the action, through her lawyers and other "influential connections" such as federal MP Barnaby Joyce who wrote to Ms Welker imploring her stop the case. Some of her tactics approached "intimidation" Justice Brereton said. "I have never seen such pressure exerted, so persistantly, on a litigant, as has been apparent in this case," Justice Brereton said. Mr Hancock said: "Hopefully that's the last time a senior politician uses his government email to intimidate my younger sister when she's trying to fight a huge battle". Mrs Rinehart was this week ranked the 37th most powerful woman in the world by American business magazine Forbes. The iron ore magnate's wealth was estimated at $US12.2 billion ($15.8 billion), down from $US17.4 billion last year.

Justice Brereton said Mrs Rinehart had gone to extraordinary lengths to maintain control, either directly or indirectly of the trust, and had exerted "enormous pressure and great influence to do so". Mrs Rinehart is preparing to start production at her $10 billion Roy Hill mine in Western Australia. In October last year, John and Bianca lodged a claim in the Federal Court claiming Mrs Rinehart defrauded them of billions of dollars in mining profits. They sought an account of profits from major iron ore projects including Roy Hill, Hope Downs and Mulga Downs, arguing their mother boosted her own shareholding at their expense. That case returns to court next month. Mrs Rinehart and Ginia had proposed a licensed trustee company as managing trustee and a special-purpose vehicle owned by the four siblings as a custodian trustee. During a hearing last year, spokespeople for three companies gave evidence as to their suitability for the role.

But Justice Brereton said while appointing Bianca was "not ideal", she was "better suited than any of the alternatives to administer this trust in the prevailing circumstances". She was the only member of the family to get into the witness box during the drawn-out ligitation. He described her as a "feisty and wary witness" but not dishonest. While there was a conflict of interest because she was a beneficiary, she had "demonstrated the ability robustly to assert the rights of the trust" against her mother and the flagship family company Hancock Prospecting. She will not be paid for the role. He said two of the companies couldn't adequately assure the court they would be able to resist the influence of Mrs Rinehart and there was potential for Mrs Rinehart to "acquire influence" in the third. The trust's main asset is a 24 per cent shareholding in Hancock Prospecting. Mrs Rinehart owns the remainder. As Mrs Rinehart voluntarily resigned as trustee during the case, he did not have to make findings as to John and Bianca's claim of serious misconduct.

Justice Brereton did not accept John and Bianca's claim that Mrs Rinehart acted in breach of the trust or for an improper or extraneous purpose - known as a fraud on the power - when she, as trustee, consented to changes to Hancock Prospecting's constitution in 2006. The change meant Hancock Prospecting shares could be owned only by Mrs Rinehart's lineal descendants and not transferred outside the family. Mrs Rinehart argued this was to avoid jeopardising the Hope Downs joint venture with Hamersley Iron and Rio Tinto but it also had the effect of preventing the trust beneficiaries from selling or using their stake as security or equity for a loan. After the judgment was handed down, Mrs Rinehart made a brief statement via Hancock Prospecting's spokesman Jason Morrison. It highlighted the one area in which the court found for Mrs Rinehart. "The company is pleased that the challenge to the amendments to its constitution have been rejected and that those amendments remain valid," it said. It also referenced Bianca's agreement to seek legal advice before making any significant decisions.

"We note that the trustee will be required to consult with all beneficiaries and get the advice of the court." In a statement released on Friday via her solicitor, Bianca said: "Our family is very fortunate thanks to the vision of my grandfather. "I am pleased that as a result of this judgment, the trust he set up will now be able to be managed in the best interests of its beneficiaries - my sisters, my brother and myself. Loading

"I am very honoured to have that responsibility and believe that this is a significant step towards restoring family harmony." Mrs Rinehart is yet to indicate if she will appeal the decision. The matter will return to court at a date to be set for a costs hearing.