John Quigley admits to making mistakes while under oath in Clive Palmer defamation trial

Western Australia’s Attorney-General has asked the Federal Court for a ‘do-over’ of his evidence in the defamation trial between Clive Palmer and Premier Mark McGowan.

West Australian Attorney-General John Quigley. Picture: Colin Murty

Western Australia’s Attorney-General has asked the Federal Court for a “do-over” of his evidence in the defamation trial between Clive Palmer and Premier Mark McGowan.

John Quigley made the extraordinary request in order to correct what were described as mistakes in the testimony he gave while under oath earlier this month.

The application was strongly opposed by lawyers for Mr Palmer at a special urgent hearing in Sydney on Thursday.

High-profile lawyer Bret Walker SC, who is representing Mr McGowan in the case, told the hearing that Mr Quigley had notified him that he had given “wrong, incorrect or mistaken answers” during his cross-examination at the hands of Peter Gray SC.

Mr Palmer’s barrister Barry Dean said the application should not be granted, saying it effectively amounted to Mr Quigley asking the court to start over.

“After a comprehensive and very effective cross examination, (Mr Quigley) effectively comes before this court and says ‘I want a re-do, I want to start again, here’s an affidavit’,” Mr Dean said.

Mr Dean said the two different accounts sought to be presented by Mr Quigley meant the Attorney-General could not be treated as a credible witness.

He noted that there was a risk that Mr Quigley had an opportunity to compare his evidence to that given by Mr McGowan, or discuss the matter with other people.

He also noted that Mr Walker had the opportunity to confer with or re-examine Mr Quigley about the apparent inconsistencies in his testimony immediately after the cross-examination but made the “forensic decision” not to do so.

“In the cross-examination of Mr Quigley, it was quite apparent to anybody watching or listening to that proceeding that there were significant issues in his evidence,” Mr Dean said.

“Throughout his evidence, he seemed completely apprised of the consequences of what he said, on no less than 16 occasions he referred to either his oath or swearing to the court, there was no ambiguity whatsoever in his evidence.”

The application from Mr Quigley would appear to relate to his testimony, delivered under cross-examination, about the strategy behind the efforts of Mr McGowan and Mr Quigley to legislate away a $30bn arbitration claim from Mr Palmer against the state.

Mr Quigley testified that he had not identified a key weakness in Mr Palmer’s arbitration claim at the time that the legislation plan was hatched. That testimony sat in contrast to that of Mr McGowan, as well as to what Mr Quigley said in a radio interview soon after the legislation was made public.

Justice Michael Lee reserved his decision on the matter.

Mr Palmer launched his defamation action against Mr McGowan over the Premier’s description of the billionaire as an “enemy of the state”. Mr McGowan has filed a defamation counterclaim of his own against Mr Palmer.

More recently, the billionaire filed another lawsuit against Mr McGowan, Mr Quigley and state solicitor Nicholas Egan personally, alleging that the trio engaged in an “unlawful conspiracy” when they hatched a plan to kill off Mr Palmer’s arbitration claim.

That lawsuit is seeking $50m in damages from the trio personally, rather than from the state, although the arbitration legislation that sparked the war between the parties also indemnifies the men from any legal action associated with the matter.