3 hours ago
2
The Australian mining magnate Clive Palmer has been ordered to pay more than $13m after his claim of being a “foreign investor” was dismissed by an international tribunal after a dispute lasting more than a decade.
The intergovernmental permanent court of arbitration rejected Palmer’s claim as it had no jurisdiction over the dispute between a national government and one of its citizens, the attorney general, Michelle Rowland, said on Saturday.
“Mr Palmer is not a ‘foreign investor’ and is not entitled to any benefits under Australia’s free trade and investment agreements,” she said.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
The government hoped the tribunal’s ruling prompted Palmer to withdraw other international claims made against the commonwealth but will continue defending them.
“Australia should never have had to spend two years and over $13m defending an investor-state claim brought by an Australian national,” she said.
A Singaporean investment company owned by Palmer claimed damages totalling almost $US200bn ($A305bn) after a mining proposal in Western Australia’s Pilbara region was blocked.
The case against the commonwealth argued breaches of the Asean-Australian-New Zealand free trade agreement.
The WA government came under scrutiny for legislation preventing damages being sought in relation to the dispute in 2020, stemming from an initial rejection in 2012.
Palmer claimed the process of blocking the project was “akin to the actions of a ‘banana republic’” in a notice of arbitration to the international tribunal after the high court rejected the challenge.
The tribunal’s decision, yet to be made public, ordered Palmer to pay costs of $13.6m, Rowland said.
The dispute was subject to a three-day hearing in The Hague on jurisdiction and admissibility in September 2024.
The prospects of the case, like others before the tribunal, were difficult to predict, University of New South Wales associate professor Jonathan Bonnitcha noted in 2023.
“Each has a unique combination of arbitrators and the case documents are not public,” he said.
“Moreover, tribunals are not bound by precedent … tribunals are generally sympathetic to foreign investor claims relating to retroactive legislation interfering with ongoing or concluded legal proceedings.”
Palmer will review the judgment, a spokesperson said.
