Clive Palmer’s lawyer criticised in Mineralogy case

A Supreme Court judge has criticised Clive Palmer’s Mineralogy lawyers for producing last-minute expert evidence.

Businessman and former federal MP Clive Palmer leaves the Supreme Court, in Brisbane, Wednesday, August 23, 2017. Businessman Clive Palmer has arrived at a Brisbane court over a legal bid by government-appointed liquidators to freeze almost $220 million of his personal assets. (AAP Image/Samantha Manchee) NO ARCHIVING

A Supreme Court judge has criticised lawyers for Clive Palmer’s flagship company for producing last-minute expert evidence, alleging their explanation could bring the court “into disrepute”.

As Mr Palmer visits his dormant Queensland Nickel refinery in Townsville, his flagship company Mineralogy is in the Queensland Supreme Court in Brisbane, trying to get out of paying Singaporean company BGP Geoexplorer a $22m bill for underwater survey works.

On the first day of the civil trial, Mineralogy’s barrister Pat Zappia QC said BGP Geoexplorer had breached its original contract for the gas exploration survey works in the Gulf of Papua with Mr Palmer’s Palmer Petroleum. Mr Zappia said that meant Mr Palmer’s company Mineralogy — which guaranteed the contract — did not have to pay.

But Supreme Court judge David Jackson QC criticised Mr Zappia for attempting to produce a fresh report from an expert witness, just five days before today’s hearing began, in an apparent breach of the court’s rules.

Mr Zappia tried to explain that the expert had “come across” the new details while preparing for the case.

Justice Jackson: “People don’t come across things. This is not a yellow brick road. The language you are using does not provide an explanation in accordance with the procedural requirements (of) rules of court.”

Mr Zappia then said the legal team “considered it appropriate” that the expert be asked a further question, which then formed the basis of the new report.

Justice Jackson ordered Mr Zappia to prepare an affidavit this afternoon explaining “who considered it appropriate, and why”.

“Because it seems to me that it’s a fundamental default in the procedural law of this court,” Justice Jackson said.

“At this point in the case … that’s the kind of statement that I think brings courts into disrepute.”

The hearing continues.

Meanwhile, Mr Palmer is in Townsville, at his nickel refinery. The purpose of his visit is not clear. Last week, he promised not to sell the refinery until the Queensland Supreme Court heard an application by liquidators to freeze his assets.

That hearing will occur next month.