Court reserves Rinehart decision
Lawyers for Pennells and The West Australian newspaper on Tuesday laid out an argument, centred on oppression and abuse of process, for resisting subpoenas served on them by Hancock in early 2012.
Pennells' lawyers say honouring the subpoenas and producing documents would breach a fundamental "tenet of journalism".
The subpoenas relate to a New South Wales-based arbitration between Mrs Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting and her estranged son, John Hancock.
They compel The West Australian to hand over all notes and recordings concerning Mrs Rinehart, Mr Hancock, Hancock Prospecting and the billion-dollar trust at the heart of the mining magnate's public family feud.
WA's media shield laws do not expressly cover pre-trial proceedings, like an arbitration, but Robert Anderson, QC, for the paper, said they indirectly played into a broader argument about the subpoenas being oppressive. "The shield laws here have a paramount importance that should not be ignored," he told the court.
Mr Anderson said it was "telling" that Hancock had not tried to get the relevant documents from Mr Hancock, who was a party to the proceedings.
Instead the company had continued with the subpoenas against journalists, which now include BusinessDay columnist Adele Ferguson, who wrote an unauthorised biography of Ms Rinehart.
Mrs Rinehart is the largest shareholder of Fairfax Media, the owner of this newspaper.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The judge reserved a decision on subpoenas that would compel award‑winning journalist Steve Pennells to reveal his sources for articles Hancock Prospecting's lawyers call family "gossip." The court has not yet ruled on whether the subpoenas must be honoured.
Hancock Prospecting served the subpoenas in early 2012. They target Steve Pennells and The West Australian newspaper, and the subpoenas were later extended to include BusinessDay columnist Adele Ferguson.
The subpoenas seek all notes and recordings held by The West Australian and the named journalists concerning Mrs Rinehart, Mr John Hancock, Hancock Prospecting and the billion‑dollar trust at the heart of the public family feud.
Pennells' lawyers argue producing the requested documents would breach a fundamental tenet of journalism — protecting sources — and have framed their resistance around claims of oppression and abuse of process in complying with the subpoenas.
WA's media shield laws do not expressly cover pre‑trial proceedings like an arbitration, but The West Australian's counsel argued those laws indirectly support a broader case that the subpoenas are oppressive and should not be enforced.
The subpoenas relate to a New South Wales arbitration between Hancock Prospecting, controlled by Mrs Rinehart, and her estranged son John Hancock. Hancock Prospecting seeks journalistic material relevant to that arbitration.
According to Robert Anderson QC for the paper, it was "telling" that Hancock Prospecting had not attempted to get the relevant documents from John Hancock, who is a party to the arbitration, before pursuing subpoenas against journalists.
The article notes Mrs Rinehart is the largest shareholder of Fairfax Media, which owns The West Australian, a fact that observers may consider relevant given the dispute involves Hancock Prospecting and the newspaper's reporting.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
