Lawyers acting for iron ore billionaire Angela Bennett have accused her brother of giving false and unreliable evidence to further his claims that he was duped out of a proper share in one of Australia’s biggest family fortunes.

Kristina Stern, SC, savaged the evidence given by Julian Wright in a case that relies heavily on his recollections of discussions with his siblings around the sale of his share of vast iron ore assets once held by their father in partnership with Lang Hancock.

Ms Stern told the Supreme Court of WA on Monday that the case should be dismissed and costs awarded against Julian Wright.

She said Julian Wright had coloured and tailored his evidence to further his case and highlighted a string of examples where he had been forced to concede earlier testimony was false.

Further to those examples, Ms Stern said other key testimony was “implausible and inconsistent”.Advertisement

This included Julian Wright’s claims he had no knowledge of plans to divide assets in the Hancock-Wright partnership, even though a 1985 letter he received from Lang Hancock showed he was made aware of pending separation and potential value of tenements that would be held by the Wright family.

Ms Stern said Julian Wright’s evidence on a 1970 royalty agreement, communications with his siblings and knowledge of major iron ore deposits such as Channar – still mined today by Rio Tinto and China’s Sinosteel – was all highly unreliable.

Julian Wright claims he was denied key information and kept in the dark about the potential value of the assets by Ms Bennett and their brother Michael Wright, now deceased, before agreeing to sell his share for $6.8 million in 1987.

‘Flawed’ case

Ms Bennett is one of the nation’s richest people, with The Australian Financial Review‘s 2019 Rich List estimating her fortune at $2.62 billion.

Her fortune has probably grown on the back of strong iron ore prices and is set for a massive boost if Wright Prospecting wins a separate case against Gina Rinehart-controlled Hancock Prospecting involving royalty rights to major iron ore mines in WA’s Pilbara region.

Ms Stern said Julian Wright’s case should be thrown out because it was flawed on a number of levels, and that his own evidence undermined his creditability.

She said the passage of time had made his evidence about events more than 30 years ago inherently unreliable and noted that under questioning Julian Wright had said: “Sometimes I can’t remember yesterday.”

In her closing arguments in the high-stakes legal battle, Ms Stern also highlighted a deed of settlement between Julian Wright and his siblings from 2008 which included a covenant not to sue.

She said the deed of settlement precluded the kind of application now before the court.

The deed was signed following an out-of-court settlement in a case where Julian’s son and daughter, Timothy and Natalie, claimed their grandfather’s will entitled them to a portion of their father’s original one-third share in Wright Prospecting.

It was revealed earlier in the trial that Ms Bennett and Michael Wright paid $70 million to Julian Wright’s two children as part of the out-of-court settlement.