When Privacy Silences a Billion-Dollar Dispute
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Equity Law › Trust › Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 514
Published: 11 November 2025 | Reviewed: 5 December 2025
(3-minute read)
A family dispute over mining wealth shows
how easily justice can move behind closed doors.
This case shows how a single phrase in a contract can move
even allegations of coercion, undue influence and lost family wealth
out of public court and into private arbitration.
The Background: Power, Trusts, and Secrecy
Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 514 involved a dispute within one of Australia’s wealthiest families. Two of Gina Rinehart’s children alleged that she misused her power as trustee of multibillion-dollar family trusts. They claimed she diverted assets, breached fiduciary duties, and pressured them into signing deeds that contained broad confidentiality and arbitration clauses.
When they sued in the Federal Court, Hancock Prospecting replied: this must not proceed publicly. You agreed to resolve these disputes privately.
The key question: could an arbitration clause force even the challenge to the deeds themselves, claims of duress and undue influence, into confidential arbitration?
If yes, the entire dispute, including whether the deeds were valid, would be heard behind closed doors.
What the High Court Decided
The High Court held that the arbitration clauses were wide enough to capture everything: trust claims, commercial claims, and even the “validity claims” alleging that the deeds were signed under pressure.
Its reasoning turned on context.
The deeds were created to settle escalating family conflict, quieten public allegations and protect major mining ventures undergoing negotiation and financing. Confidentiality was not incidental. It was central.
The Court said it would be “inconceivable” that the parties intended challenges to the deeds to be played out publicly, particularly when those deeds themselves were drafted to end publicity.
So the Court stayed the Federal Court proceedings. The dispute, including whether the deeds were valid, had to go to private arbitration.
The Court also confirmed that certain third-party mining companies could compel arbitration too, because their rights were claimed “through or under” the Hancock entities. Their legal position depended on the deeds’ releases and covenants, so they were entitled to rely on the arbitration clauses.
Why This Case Still Matters
This judgment reshaped Australian arbitration law in three structural ways:
Confidential arbitration can cover disputes about whether the contract itself is valid.
Context, not just wording, determines how broad an arbitration clause is.
Companies connected through legal entitlements, even if not signatories, may rely on arbitration clauses if they claim through or under a party.
For families, trustees, and commercial parties, the message is clear: confidentiality clauses can be powerful enough to reshape the entire path of a dispute.
For the public, it raises a quiet question: when wealth and privacy intersect, how much of justice remains visible?
The Clean Law Connection: When Private Processes Must Still Honour Public Fairness
This judgment shows the tension between confidentiality and fairness. In Rinehart, confidentiality was upheld because it served commercial stability and reflected the parties’ intention.
At Clean Law, confidentiality has a different foundation.
It functions as an ethical boundary within a transparent structure. That structure includes separation of roles, escrow oversight and external accountability. These guardrails ensure that private processes never suppress fairness or tilt control.
Clean Law’s approach keeps what must be private, private, but ensures that every step remains structurally accountable, transparent and aligned with the client’s informed decisions.
Confidentiality is an environment, not a shield.
When Silence Becomes the Forum
Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting shows how disputes of national interest can leave the courtroom entirely, redirected into a private room because of a few words embedded in a deed.
The High Court drew that line based on purpose, context and commercial necessity.
For Australians facing complex disputes, the lesson is structural: what you sign can determine where your truth is heard.
Clean Law helps clients understand these structures early, so silence never surprises them.
Learn how Clean Law separates roles to keep power balanced and processes transparent
Speak with us in confidence about your dispute Request a Confidential Call
- OR -
Read: Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 514
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
