Clive Palmer a 'prodigious and inventive litigator'

CLIVE Palmer was a "prodigious litigator" who could be "inventive" in legal actions, a court heard yesterday.

Clive Palmer is congratulated by Mal Brough

CLIVE Palmer was a "prodigious litigator" who could be "inventive" in legal actions against people he sued, the Supreme Court of Queensland heard yesterday.

But a series of courtroom defeats -- including another one foreshadowed yesterday for Mr Palmer, the newly elected federal member for Fairfax -- has ruined his repeated claims to have never lost a case.

The resources tycoon sent his solicitor, Brett Bolton, to appear before Supreme Court judge Roslyn Atkinson yesterday to advise that Mr Palmer wanted to abandon his $10 million action for defamation against a soccer arbitrator and a newspaper.

The action was started after the arbitrator, Sydney barrister Shaun McCarthy, gave a written judgment for Football Federation Australia in which Mr Palmer was found to have acted "dishonourably" and been a "bully" in cutting the entitlements of a soccer player despite, having brought him from Germany on a binding contract.

Justice Atkinson, who has previously told a witness in the matter that there was no need to refer to him as "Professor" Palmer in her court, expressed concern at the "rather unusual history" of the case and how it had been run by Mr Palmer and his lawyers.

Delays, failure to file documents, and changes in representation had ratcheted up legal costs.

Justice Atkinson questioned Mr Bolton about being late to court yesterday and not having his written outline readily available.

She told the court that Mr Palmer's lawyers had written to her on September 17 and asked her to step aside from hearing the case because she had previously acted for Mr Palmer and his companies as a barrister.

Justice Atkinson said she believed she had acted for Mr Palmer in a civil matter in about 1990 and that it would have no impact on her decision-making now.

Rob Anderson, counsel for Mr McCarthy and Gold Coast Publications, said his clients should be awarded more than the standard legal costs, adding that the handling of the case "doesn't reflect well on Mr Palmer or those who have been acting for him".

Mr Bolton conceded that Mr Palmer wanted to "discontinue" the proceedings but said he should be liable to pay only standard legal costs for the other side.

Mr Bolton said Mr Palmer had already lost a number of costs orders in the case.

Justice Atkinson reserved her decision on costs after asking Mr Anderson: "You're not suggesting the plaintiff would be inventive?"

Mr Anderson replied: "Mr Palmer is a prodigious litigant."