Clive Palmer’s refusal to accept a peace deal from Premier Mark McGowan last year is expected to be a major consideration in the distribution of their eye-watering legal fees.
Mining magnate Clive Palmer’s refusal to accept a peace deal from Premier Mark McGowan last year is expected to be a major consideration in the distribution of their eye-watering legal fees.
During a hearing in the Federal Court this morning, the billionaire’s lawyers pushed for the parties to cover their own legal costs, arguing the cases effectively ended in a tie and the two parties shared almost equivalent success.
Further, it was argued that Mr Palmer had no choice but to reject Mr McGowan’s 11th-hour offer to “walk away”, highlighting Justice Michael Lee’s finding that the defamation was minor but still actionable.
“Your honour recognised the high regard Mr Palmer is held in certain circles, and while you described that this was not serious defamation, it was actionable nonetheless,” Mr Palmer’s lawyer argued.
“The offer extended would have resulted in the matter being dismissed.
“While significant costs were still incurred, partially, the costs were increased due to factors outside of my client’s control, and to an extent, Mr McGowan’s control.
“This matter could have been concluded in February, but it has obviously been extended for much longer.
“Looking at the position Mr Palmer was in when the offer was extended, it’s not unreasonable of him to reject that offer.”
Mr McGowan’s lawyer Bret Walker refuted claims Mr McGowan rejected offers for mediation and insisted there was nothing inappropriate about the walk away offer; which he said was not issued at the 11th-hour.
He conceded there was a pox on both of their houses when it came to the matter of costs.
But Mr Walker urged Justice Lee to take the peace offering into account and highlighted the difference in the damages awarded.
“Of course, it doesn’t lie well in our mouth to claim vindication, given the modest sum in damages,” he said.
“There is equal disapprobation in the fighting of this to the finish.
“But the offer has to be taken into account, it has to be.
“Why should Mr McGowan have to bear half of the cost?”
Justice Lee acknowledged that the offer and its refusal was of importance, as well as highlighting the unusual nature of the case and the need to look beyond mechanical legal principles to resolve it.
“There is an asymmetry of responsibility in that one party made an effort to resolve it and the other didn’t,” he said.
Justice Lee adjourned the hearing, with a final decision on the distribution of costs expected this afternoon.
