Judge slams Clive Palmer for ‘legally embarrassing’ Citic costs bid

Clive Palmer and his legal team have been lambasted by a ­Supreme Court judge in a new ruling that lays bare the cost and scale of his many legal disputes with Citic.

Clive Palmer outside the Supreme Court in Brisbane in May. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

Clive Palmer and his legal team have been lambasted by a ­Supreme Court judge in a new ruling that lays bare the cost and scale of his many legal disputes with his Chinese business partners Citic.

Mr Palmer is suing Citic to recoup costs incurred in suing the company since he struck an initial 2006 deal with it that turned him into one of Australia’s richest men.

A Supreme Court judgment handed down on Friday showed that Mr Palmer and his private company Mineralogy were seeking almost $20m to cover the costs of 34 cases he has fought with the group over the years. The Queensland billionaire’s lawyers had argued the costs should be reimbursed by Citic due to a clause in the initial agreement that stated Citic would pay all of Mineralogy’s costs in “administering” its agreement with the Chinese giant.

But the judgment from ­Supreme Court judge Kenneth Martin said many of the points raised by Mr Palmer in his latest attempts to amend his claim were “legally embarrassing” and ordered his legal team to redo them.

Mr Palmer’s original claim sought $27,312,977.41, including $19,813,414.21 of legal costs incurred between 2013 and 2020. Those legal bills related to 34 ­actions, mostly in the WA ­Supreme Court but also in the High Court, the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Federal Court and in the Court of Appeal of WA.

Mineralogy originally argued it should be entitled to recoup all legal costs in each matter, regardless of whether it won, lost, drew or even withdrew altogether.

The initial claim also sought $2.3m of unspecified “internal costs”, $4.5m of “other legal costs” and $693,000 of “rent floor fees”.

In June, Mineralogy made a fourth attempt to revise its statement of claim, including reducing the legal cost recoupment sought down to what Justice Martin ­described as a “mere” $11.6m.

Justin Martin criticised Mineralogy for offering “spartan and inadequate” detail.

A list of internal costs detailed by Mineralogy as requiring reimbursement, including “accounting advice and services, health, safety and environment management, geology and tenement management, environmental management, general management, IT and document control management, operations management, reception and captain [sic] control”, was described by Justice Martin as a “rolled up and non-specific jumble of words” that was “not good enough”.

“I would afford Mineralogy one further brief opportunity to rehabilitate this plea. Otherwise, the plea should also be permanently struck out as legally embarrassing,” Justice Martin wrote.