FED:Gina Rinehart fails to keep fear claims secret

AAP General News (Australia)
02-02-2012
FED:Gina Rinehart fails to keep fear claims secret

By Margaret Scheikowski

SYDNEY, Feb 2 AAP - Billionaire iron-ore heiress Gina Rinehart has failed to keep secret
her latest litigation involving claims of fears for her safety and that of her children.

In the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday, Justice Michael Ball said a non-publication order
was not necessary to protect the safety of Ms Rinehart or her four children.

On Wednesday night, after an urgent application to the High Court, Australia's richest
woman succeeded in keeping secret details of her family trust battle until March 9.

But on Thursday in the Supreme Court her lawyers made a new application for a suppression
order on the new grounds of safety fears.

They also asked Justice Ball to make non-publication orders on the application and
on two supporting affidavits, one which included a safety assessment report.

Three of her four children - who initiated the original lawsuit in a bid to have her
ousted as trustee of the multi billion-dollar family trust - opposed the latest applications,
as did lawyers for some media outlets.

AAP was not a party to the proceedings and therefore could not obtain copies of the
relevant documents, but media outlets which were involved did receive them.

Justice Ball said Ms Rinehart's lawyer submitted that if the case received publicity
it was "likely, or at least it may, attract the attention of persons who could constitute
a threat to the parties to the litigation".

"There can be no doubt that there is considerable media interest in this litigant," he said.

He also agreed that publicity of the proceedings might attract unwelcome comment or
attention to the parties.

"But I think the same is true of any of the conduct that those parties may engage in," he said.

Unwelcome comment or attention was not sufficient to establish the necessity to protect
the litigants' safety by a suppression order, the judge said.

"It seems to me, if it were otherwise, a suppression order would be justified on that
ground in respect of any proceedings involving a person with a significant public profile."

He said an affidavit by Ms Rinehart's lawyer attached material which was available
in the public domain about the parties.

It also attached correspondence between them expressing concerns about their personal
security in regard to the publicity the case had attracted.

But Justice Ball said he did not see how suppression of this material was necessary
to protect their safety.

He noted the three children suing their mother did not want the orders sought, which
were said to be related to their safety.

Further, he did not see how publishing anything in the security assessment would create
a risk to any of the parties.

"The essential point of the report is that the more publicity the parties receive,
the more likely they are to attract attention from undesirable people in the community
and as a result the greater the risk they face to their safety."

AAP mss/jjs/wf/wjf

KEYWORD: LEGAL: RINEHART WRAP

� 2012 AAP Information Services Pty Limited (AAP) or its Licensors.