The three estranged Rinehart children have closed their door to a reconciliation or mediation with the family matriarch who holds control over the family trust. Documents released by the New South Wales Supreme Court showed that the reason behind the rejection of the kids of a reconciliation is their perception that their mother, Gina Rinehart, treats them with disdain and arrogance.

"Her conduct has been such that the plaintiffs have no confidence that there is any scope for improvement on this fundamental point," News.com.au quoted the submission of Hope Rinehart Welker, Bianca Rinehart and John Langley Hancock.

The details came out as a result of the High Court decision that rejected Ms Rinehart's bid to suppress the publication of the details of the family court feud.

The three wanted to replace their mother, the richest woman in Australia and Asia, as head of the family trust but a day before the trust vested Ms Rinehart moved the vesting date by 50 years due to warnings that her children would become bankrupt because of capital gains tax.

She explained the change in the date of the trust vesting to her belief that the children are not ready to manage the trust on their own and to make them find work and abandon their holidaying lifestyle.

In a bid to make Bianca drop the lawsuit to remove Ms Rinehart as head of the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust, she offered Bianca quarterly payments in amounts that the former would determine.

A second daughter sought more time to study the trust's records before she signs an agreement that would extend the term of her mother as head of the trust.

"I can't sign that. You're going to cut me off until I move to Perth or Singapore. Or you will make more 'loans' to yourself or the company and we'll be forever in debt. I'm never going to be able to provide for my children. Please call me, we need to talk." Perth Now quoted Hope.

In her reply to Hope dated Sept 4, Ms Rinehart warned her daughter that if she opts not to sign the extension, she should face the consequence of her action.

"From my perspective you have a very easy financial decision to make - you certainly do not need weeks or months to consider. I am sorry if you have been confused by anyone else," replied the iron ore magnate.

John rejected the statement of youngest sister Ginia - who has sided with their mother - that he was living on inherited projects and royalties. John insisted he used his skills to earn money, while he criticised Ginia for having a Rolls Royce at age 25.

Hope added she is saddened by Ginia's statement and insisted their purpose in filing the lawsuit was to ensure that the assets and income of the trust "are managed in a proper and lawful fashion."

At the heart of the ugly and public family feud are billions of dollars in the trust which holds a 25 per cent stake in Hancock Prospecting.

In 2006, Ms Rinehart signed an agreement with her children that allowed her to extend the vesting date of the trust. The deal the children would get in return for signing the extension 25 per cent of the Hope Downs mine net cash flow after tax and another 25 per cent less any amounts for developing the tenements.

With the upgrade to the mine and projected production increase to 22.5 million tonnes from 15 million tonnes, and based on the assumption that commodity prices will remain strong and costs are contained, the amount of cash that Hancock would get from Hope Down would go up to $2 billion. That means the four would be entitled to $1 billion a year or about $250 million yearly for each child.

Despite the current massive development which could reduce the children's take, the four still stand to earn at least $125 million each if the current iron or prices and industry conditions stay unchanged.

RELATED STORIES