The Australian High Court backed the decision on Friday by the New South Wales Supreme Court to reject the extension of a suppression order on the details of the Rinehart family court feud.

Chief Justice Robert Shenton French and Justice William Montague Charles Gummow, in rejecting the petition of Australia and Asia's richest woman, Gina Rinehart, said they were not satisfied that her application had sufficient prospect of success. Mr French added the proper conduct of a trustee warrants public scrutiny.

Lawyers for Mrs Rinehart, whose wealth is estimated at $18 billion, argued with the High Court that the court case filed by three of her estranged children - John Hancock, Bianca Rinehart and Hope Welker - was a commercial dispute and must be referred to arbitration based on the trust deed agreement. However, lawyers for her three children and media groups which opposed the suppression order, said it was a family feud and it is in the interest of open justice for the order to be lifted.

Mrs Rinehart's solicitor, Paul McCann, maintained that the allegations of her three children that she was not fit to be head the family trust are only allegations and are disputed. Mr McCann added that Mrs Rinehart and one daughter who sided with her, Ginia, were extremely disappointed by the insistence of the three siblings to make public a private matter which also places at risk family security.

He clarified that the Mrs Rinehart's father did not put 25 per cent of Hancock Prospecting funds in a trust for his grandchildren. Rather, it was Mrs Rinehart who raised the trust shareholding to 23.4 per cent from 15 per cent of Hancock shares.

"There was nothing unusual about Mrs Rinehart seeking an indemnity in return for her undertaking her unpaid role as trustee. Trustees of trust funds this century invariably insist upon and have the benefit of widespread protections for themselves. The HMH Trust was set up in 1988 and didn't have any such protections, which today's trust instruments have for the benefit of trustees," The Australian quoted Mr McCann.

With the decision, more details of her family feud are expected to be published soon. One such detail which had already come out is a warning from Mrs Rinehart to her children that they could end up bankrupt unless they agree to let her stay as head of the trust.

She emailed her three estranged children one day before the trust was to vest on Sept 6, 2011 - Ginia's 25th birthday - to inform them of their potential tax liability of $100 million. Mrs Rinehart advised them to avoid financial disaster by agreeing to sign a new deed that would give her long-term control of the trust.

Reports said the three estranged children want to divide the trust and make themselves trustees of the new trust, after which they would seek a ruling from the Australian Tax Office on potential capital gains tax liability.

Mrs Rinehart and Ginia have sought a permanent stay of the trust litigation based on an agreement inked by all of them in 2006 to have disputes submitted to confidential mediation or arbitration.

She also issued a statement in which she said that if the three are not happy with their situation "they should go out and earn for themselves."

The Rinehart matriarch pointed out the children lived very privileged lives as evidenced by their going to private school, having private tutors, going on extensive holidays overseas, and purchasing designers clothes, expensive jewelry and multi-million dollar homes with water views and swimming pools.

In support of her mother, Ginia said in a statement that it was painful to have their dirty linen aired in public. She insisted their mother only wanted the best for them and they were blessed with exceptionally fortunate upbringing.

"This case is motivated entirely by greed and I have no doubt that one day soon my brother and sisters will regret putting money before family. Unfortunately, this realisation will come too late as the damage to our family and its good reputation will already have been done," Ginia said.

RELATED STORIES