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.
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.
If someone tries to stop me from watching something then I will watch it.
Twice.
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.
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 🙂
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.
Couldn’t she just stream it on Stan?
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?
If I had as much money as Gina Rinehart, I really wouldn’t give a shit.
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?
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.
Harry, ‘the average Joe’ tends not to have ‘docu-dramas made about them.
Oh dear oh dear poor Gina – she really does need to toughen up. Perhaps call Jacquie Lambie and have a bag of cement delivered!
In the final scene, Gina and Ketut try to break the internet. Happiness, found.
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
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
Gina has obviously never heard of ‘The Streisand effect’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
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?
Yes marketing coup for 9
Maybe she wants to know what happens: Hint … the old guy dies, and Gina eats all the pies.
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.
Was a lease granted on the mining assets her daddy pegged? Can it expire really soon please? When will karma come along and bite?
Gina’s angst sustains me.
@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.
“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.
@Henry Jones IXL
Others were a little more ‘subtle’.
Well Nic, after you finish smirking at her, you could go join a communist party somewhere?
Go get’em Gina. I would.
@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.