A mining magnate, family mutiny and a security 'threat' from Dubai. Sound like a script from a Hollywood action movie? Well, it's not but we think it's just as exciting.
Here's what's happened since our last update.
In a bid to obtain a suppression order over details of a family trust battle, Gina Rinehart faced the NSW Supreme Court with concerns for the safety of herself and her family. Part of this attempt involved allegations of a specific threat against Mrs Rinehart made by an unknown man in Dubai who, after being followed for a while, mysteriously vanished into a crowded marketplace. Unsurprisingly, he was never seen again. It comes as even less of a surprise that this supposed threat was dismissed for lacking credibility and probative value.
Mrs Rinehart asserted that exposure from the publication of the material sought to be suppressed would increase the risk of kidnapping or extortion. This is a tough one to make out when you're known globally as 'Australia's richest woman' and you've hit number 29 on the Forbes rich list. Consequently, the Court found that the chances of the Rinehart family being targeted by potential harm-doers wouldn't increase significantly as a result of the publication of the suppressed material.
To sum up, Mrs Rinehart lost her bid for secrecy. And it was no help to her that her three eldest children, who she had safety concerns for, opposed the order being made in the first place.
Mrs Rinehart's earlier attempt to suppress details of the case was based on the terms of the trust deed requiring all parties resolve disputes by "confidential mediation or arbitration". A single judge, then the NSW Court of Appeal didn't accept that details of that case ought be suppressed. Mrs Reinhart appealed each of these decisions until finally the High Court on 9 March 2012 knocked back her application for special leave to appeal.
What next?
Just when we thought that we would get all the juicy details it was reported that Rinehart will seek a further order that parts of the Supreme Court file be suppressed. No wonder the barrister for the Rinehart children claimed this was a "never-ending cycle of increasingly desperate applications".
Lost in all the drama are the key issues of whether the question of the removal of a trustee for misconduct can be the subject of private arbitration and whether a trustee can contract out of the jurisdiction of the court to exercise the historic supervisory jurisdiction over the conduct of trustees. Those issues are still be heard by the Court of Appeal.
We have a feeling this story is only going to get better.
This update was co-authored by a clever summer clerk, Rachel Kong
We do not disclaim anything about this article. We're quite proud of it really.
