Australia has been fascinated by the battle between this nation's richest woman and some of her children over control of an inheritance vested in those children by the late mining magnate Lang Hancock. The original deed of inheritance decreed that control would pass to the children when the eldest - Biaca Rinehart - turned twenty-five in September, 2011.
Legal moves changed the goal posts and resulted in bitter acrimony. One daughter - Gina - sided with her mother and another - Hope Welker - withdrew from the case after receiving part of her inheritance, leaving Bianca Rinehart and her brother John to pursue the matter in court.
This week Bianca won her battle in the Supreme court when a judge found that she could "robustly " stand up to her mother and that any independent trust administrator would be under pressure to adhere to her mother's wishes. There is now an expectation of appeals and that further action may see this matter finally decided in Australia's High Court. Legal fees are not a deterrent when this decision puts an inheritance of four billion dollars at Bianca's disposal.
Unfortunately, the Rinehart battle is a mere microcosm of battles that are taking place in countless Australian court rooms as relatives fight over the distribution of wills. The notion that when a person made a will that was the final disposition of whatever estate remained after his or her death has been turned on it's ear. We are now finding that most judges and magistrates are prepared to "second guess " the terms of wills - and award the distribution of assets entirely as a matter of personal judgement.
Lang Hancock is probably turning in his grave. He was a giant of the Australian mining industry and it was his discovery of iron ore in Western Australia that created a commodity export boom that saw us sail through the 08 recession in better shape than the rest of the world. He was a self made man - and he expected his orders to be carried out without question. There is no doubt about his intentions when he made his will.
What has emerged in legal circles is a new way of thinking about the rights of living beings to decide how and to whom their assets will pass on their death. A century ago that was absolute, but today the judiciary has given itself the right to interfere. A person may have had a very good reason for excluding a person from their will, but the court will now over ride the deceased wishes and will simply apply "social thinking " to that distribution. In many cases, that same social thinking will be influenced by either the religious beliefs or the political persuasion of the person sitting in judgement.
To complicate matters, the legal industry sees wills as a new source of income, which some will see as a form of prostitution of ethics. Legal firms advertise in newspapers by suggesting that they specialise in "righting wrongs " and will deliver "justice " to those left out of a will. To entice customers through their door, many promise the action will be on a "No win - No fee " basis. Of course there is no mention of the fact that if a loss results in the other parties costs being found against the appellant - the attorney will walk away whistling Dixie !
There is also another aspect of "No win - No fee " cases that many people consider abhorrent. Many lawyers agree to take the case on the basis of receiving a percentage cut of the rewards won if they overturn a will. Invariably, this is far in excess of what they would charge in the usual client/lawyer scenario - and they only take cases they are assured of bringing to a succcessful conclusion.
Bianca Rinhehart's win will probably not be the end of the Hancock will saga and where billions are involved the legal battles will be little short of trench warfare. Sadly, the ordinary citizen making a will and hoping that his or her intentions will be carried out upon their death can no longer have trust in the system. Their instructions are now subjected to the decisions of others - and may completely reverse the intention of the deceased !
No comments:
Post a Comment