Mining magnate Gina Rinehart intends to sue the producers of hit TV mini-series House of Hancock for misleading and deceptive conduct, a court has heard.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
On Friday, barrister Sue Chrysanthou for Mrs Rinehart told the NSW Supreme Court they would be taking action against production company Cordell Jigsaw Zapruder under the Australian Consumer Law.
Justice Lucy McCallum was told Mrs Rinehart intends to sue producers Paul Bennett, Michael Cordell and Claudia Karvan under section 18 of the act, which prohibits a person, in trade or commerce, from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct.
Mrs Rinehart's claim for defamation and malicious falsehood is likely to be dropped, Ms Chrysanthou said.
Mark O'Brien, for TCN Channel Nine, criticised the conduct of Australia's richest woman, saying the defamation claim had been "hanging over the head" of his client since February.
As a result, the broadcaster had been unable to exploit potential commercial opportunities, he said.
In late February, Mrs Rinehart filed documents in the NSW Supreme Court claiming both episodes of the two-part series - which attracted a national audience of 2 million viewers for each instalment - defamed her.
The hit show was set primarily in the years between 1980 and 2002 and focused on the epic feud between the late Lang Hancock (played by Sam Neill), his wife Rose Lacson (Peta Sergeant) and Mrs Rinehart, his daughter (played by Mandy McElhinney).
Following the broadcast of episode one on February 7, Mrs Rinehart sought and won an advance viewing of the finale before it aired on February 14.
A last-minute deal was hammered out by lawyers, permitting the program to go ahead with a raft of scenes edited out. The nature and length of those scenes is subject to a confidential settlement.
A disclaimer stating the show was a "drama, not a documentary" and that Mrs Rinehart was not interviewed by the producers was shown at the beginning and end of the episode.
However, those measures did not placate Mrs Rinehart and in late Febrary she asked the court to award damages and interest and also make an order permanently restraining Channel Nine from further broadcasting both the version that went to air with about four minutes of cuts, and the unedited version.
Justice McCallum adjourned the case so documents could be filed on the production company.
