Rinehart in Supreme Court seeking access to House of Hancock
Mining billionaire Gina Rinehart has taken legal action against the Nine Network this morning seeking access to the second episode of the House of Hancock miniseries .
The Rinehart camp is seeking access to the final episode, which portrays the relationship between Rinehart, her father Lang Hancock and his second wife Rose Porteous, to see if there a “defamatory imputations”.
The case is in Sydney’s Supreme Court this morning before Justice Peter Garling, who has today heard evidence that the Rinehart camp believes parts of the show are fictionalised with comparisons being made to the soap opera Dynasty.
A spokeswoman for Nine declined to comment on the case, but it comes just days after senior executives at Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting took aim at Nine Entertainment Co CEO David Gyngell saying they had repeatedly told him of “glaring errors” in some scenes of the mini-series House of Hancock.
Sources have told Mumbrella that Rinehart’s camp wants access to the second episode of the series, which is scheduled to screen next Sunday and will feature the death of Hancock and subsequent legal dispute between Rinehart and Porteous, before fast forwarding to a later dispute between Rinehart and her children.
Rinehart is being represented by Tom Blackburn SC who has asked the court to grant an application for urgent preliminary discovery against Nine.
Blackburn is arguing malicious falsehood and defamation as the main causes of the action, under which Rinehart is seeking access to the episode.
The Rinehart camp is also using the Section 18 of Australian consumer law to argue that the actors breached rules on misleading or deceptive conduct by pretending to be someone else.
In a letter from Rinehart’s lawyer to Nine’s legal counsel Mark O’Brien, tendered to the court, the mining magnate complains that parts of the miniseries have been fictionalised, citing statements by the producers in a recent episode of A Current Affair.
Corrs Chambers Westgarth partner Mark Wilks wrote: “Yesterday your client broadcast an item on ‘A Current Affair’ about the second instalment of ‘House of Hancock’. In answer to a question ‘Did you make this stuff up?’, one of the producers, Mr Cordell, replies evasively ‘We’re making a drama, we’re not making a documentary.’ The item then quotes with approval a (TV) critic, Mr (Peter) Ford, who describes it as a ‘ripping yarn’ and adds ‘you could not make this stuff up, it’s straight out of Dynasty’, which indicates in fact that it is made up.”
In a statement made earlier in the week Tad Watroba, executive director of Rinehart’s company Hancock Prospecting said: “Channel 9 has seemingly gone out of its way to cause undue damage and upset to those currently living and the memory of those no longer with us.”
“Despite repeatedly bringing it to Nine CEO David Gyngell’s attention, many scenes broadcast last night were fictitious, unfounded or grossly distorted, and some simply never occurred.”
The case continues.
Nic Christensen
Rinehart’s legal team’s letter in full:
“Dear Mr O’Brien
We refer to your letter of 2 February 2015 and our letters of 8 February and 11 February.
The first instalment of “House of Hancock” contained a number of entirely fictitious matters concerning our client. It includes, inter alia, a conversation with our client’s father which did not occur (and which your client has just made up) in which Mr Hancock tells our client that her then future husband did not love her and that no one could love her, implying something seriously wrong with our client. The show depicts a vulgar and garish wedding, which style of wedding did not occur, between Mrs Rinehart and her late husband Mr Frank Rinehart, demeaning both Mr and Mrs Rinehart. It further depicts a phone call when Mrs Rinehart was holidaying in USA, which did not occur, but implies she was so callous that she was not with her mother when she needed her only daughter most. This was despite both the dates of the wedding and the date of her devoted mothers passing being available and clearly indicating such scene was incorrect. The show depicts a scene between father and daughter that did not happen as we wrote to you shortly prior to the program, wherein Mr Hancock said some grossly defamatory things about his daughter.
Yesterday your client broadcast an item on “A Current Affair” about the second instalment of “House of Hancock”. In answer to a question “Did you make this stuff up?”, one of the producers, Mr Cordell, replies evasively “We’re making a drama, we’re not making a documentary.” The item then quotes with approval a critic, Mr Ford, who describes it as a “ripping yarn” and adds “you could not make this stuff up, it’s straight out of Dynasty”, which indicates in fact that it is made up.
Mr Cordell then says “This is a big explosive Dallas type drama and a lot of it we didn’t have to make up, a lot of it is on the public record” (Emphasis added).
These exchanges are a clear admission not only that the miniseries contains matters that are untrue, but that your client knew that they were untrue when it broadcast the program.
Mr Ford is further quoted as saying via other media after viewing the show that the second show contains “an even more explosive conclusion this Sunday”, and adds that it is “must-see televisionon Sunday night, except for Mrs Rinehart, she should definitely make plans to go out to dinner next Sunday night.”
Given your client’s admissions that the programs contain untruths, and Peter Ford’s boast after seeing the film on “A Current Affair” that the second program is “even more explosive”, and that our client should “make plans to go out to dinner”, we have reason to think that the second program may be defamatory of our client, contain injurious falsehoods about her, and involve your client in an accessorial breach the Australian Consumer Law.
We also refer to the following comments made by Mr Ford this morning on the 3AW Breakfast show:
· “…if Mrs Rinehart was unhappy with what she saw last Sunday night, she definitely should go out for dinner next Sunday night, because it’s like 20 times worse about her.”
· “They make her look like an obsessed, vindictive shrew. I felt very sorry for her. I actually – I don’t know the woman at all, I’ve never met her – but I can’t believe that somebody could truly be that sour about life, but that’s the picture they have painted of her”; and
· “There’s a very final scene in The House of Hancock, if you stick around to watch it, I reckon your jaw will drop”.
As noted, Mr Ford is put forward by your client itself as a reliable commentator in the “A Current Affair” segment.
Please let us have a copy of Sunday’s second episode to inspect by no later than 3.00 PM today, failing which our client may approach the Court for such other relief as may be advised. You can provide the program to us electronically and by delivery of a disk.
Our client reserves all her rights.
Mark Wilks
Partner”
Gyngell must be on the point of orgasm with the fresh delivery of free publicity across all outlets. Ms Rinehart’s miss judged this one big time.
User ID not verified.
If someone tries to stop me from watching something then I will watch it.
Twice.
User ID not verified.
When, oh when, will people realise that sometimes it is better to zip lips and sit on your hands. I quite understand that this is probably unpleasant for Rinehart but disdain and a casual disregard for the programme would probably have worked better in this instance. I got half way through the first episode and that will be it for me. It’s certainly no “Gone With the Wind” type classic.
User ID not verified.
Agreed Nick, even if it is slow moving, poorly acted and with one character, now known as ‘The Plaintiff’ suddenly having a South African accent. Three times even 🙂
User ID not verified.
Gina seems to really dislike freedom of the press. Maybe the IPA should revoke her membership and awards because you know….this and her court attacks on journalists in the past suggests…no, screams that she hates freedom.
User ID not verified.
Couldn’t she just stream it on Stan?
User ID not verified.
Maybe Gina’s lawyers have a point on their claim that actors are engaging in misleading conduct by acting to be someone else.
Have you seen who they cast as Rose?
User ID not verified.
If I had as much money as Gina Rinehart, I really wouldn’t give a shit.
User ID not verified.
Australian courts usually don’t grant injunctions, really as a freedom of press issue arguing that damages are an available remedy. Unfortunately this view doesn’t often help your average Joe who can’t afford to initiate legal proceedings but does help the very rich Gina. I suspect an out of court settlement with Gina and perhaps even Rose will eventually emerge. Nine knew the risk on this show and I hope that the actual producers from the independent production company who were commissioned by Nine will have sort an indemnity from Nine. I would not like to be taken to court by a person with such wealth and history of aggressive litigation. Was it really worth it for 4 hours of tele?
User ID not verified.
Fathers do say things like this to their daughters. I bet it isn’t too far from the truth, just hurtful – even if this exact conversation did not occur.
It is touted and publicised as a drama, not a documentary. Perhaps too many home truths and hurtful memories for Ms Rinehart’s.
Interesting to note that money doesn’t always buy happiness.
User ID not verified.
Harry, ‘the average Joe’ tends not to have ‘docu-dramas made about them.
User ID not verified.
Oh dear oh dear poor Gina – she really does need to toughen up. Perhaps call Jacquie Lambie and have a bag of cement delivered!
User ID not verified.
In the final scene, Gina and Ketut try to break the internet. Happiness, found.
User ID not verified.
Rich folk love running off to Court don’t they. Kerry Stokes loves it, Gina loves it – Packer loves it less but he just sorts out his niggles with a tumble in the streets. Maybe is it like their version of mumbrella comments . Couldn’t her lawyers have just called nine and asked for a preview? They were clearly supplied episode one. How did they get in Gyng’s grill before the first show aired ? She thinks Vegas weddings are vulgar and garish. Slagging your kids off in the media falls within her moral compass
User ID not verified.
This bothers me.
This is a drama series about Australia’s richest person.
Is she offended? Grab a tissue.
Definitely not the first person to go under the microscope and why should she be above the law because she gets the best lawyers up and down the coast?
Let’s tune in. She can’t bully this black duck
User ID not verified.
Gina has obviously never heard of ‘The Streisand effect’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
User ID not verified.
Maybe she should look up “THE STREISAND EFFECT”
Trying to censor or restrict stories like this tends to inflate them,
surely she would not be a stranger to this phenomena by now?
User ID not verified.
Yes marketing coup for 9
User ID not verified.
Maybe she wants to know what happens: Hint … the old guy dies, and Gina eats all the pies.
User ID not verified.
If something purports to be a true story, then it should at least attempt to follow the truth.
You Rinehart haters would be spitting chips if a drama about Gough contained made up scenes that painted him in a poor light.
User ID not verified.
Was a lease granted on the mining assets her daddy pegged? Can it expire really soon please? When will karma come along and bite?
User ID not verified.
Gina’s angst sustains me.
User ID not verified.
@Robbo you say ‘Rinehart haters’ like its a bad thing.
Personally, i think we should nationalise the mining industry – just to see the expression on her face.
User ID not verified.
“Not A Fan’ …a fat joke, now that’s class.
That comment shows you’re just a rude arsehat. Challenge on wealth, on power, on resource rights.. nope not you, you went for a grubby personal sneer.
You are hilarious.
User ID not verified.
@Henry Jones IXL
Others were a little more ‘subtle’.
User ID not verified.
Well Nic, after you finish smirking at her, you could go join a communist party somewhere?
User ID not verified.
Go get’em Gina. I would.
User ID not verified.
@Robbo
Oh dear Robbo. You have been institutionalised haven’t you. There are people in Australia who speak like you and vote for the Murdoch lovers and still sell a three quarter pot to the local tanner…
The mind boggles.
User ID not verified.