Clive Palmer ordered to pay part of Mark McGowan’s legal costs after defamation battle

Billionaire’s costs will not similarly be paid by WA premier, as judge finds ‘asymmetry of responsibility’ for ‘long and costly’ case

Clive Palmer has been ordered to pay part of Mark McGowan’s legal costs while the Western Australian premier will pay none of the billionaire’s, despite the federal court finding they both defamed each other.

On Thursday, Justice Michael Lee found there was an “asymmetry of responsibility” for the “long and costly” hearing of the case, because Palmer launched proceedings but only McGowan “was willing to draw back” by offering to drop the case in December 2021.

The decision leaves Palmer, the billionaire chairperson of the United Australia party, paying his own costs for his defamation claim against McGowan, some of McGowan’s for the cross-claim, and the state of Western Australia’s costs for a mid-trial stoush about discovery.

Earlier in August, the court found the pair defamed each other in a war of words over Covid-19 and extraordinary legislation extinguishing the billionaire’s $30bn claim against Western Australia.

Clive Palmer outside the Brisbane supreme court, 1 June, 2022.
Clive Palmer outside the Brisbane supreme court, 1 June, 2022. Photograph: Jono Searle/AAP

Palmer received damages of just $5,000 while McGowan got $20,000 because Justice Michael Lee accepted his evidence about his hurt feelings.

On Thursday Lee gave judgment on costs, which he noted would be in “glaring disproportion” to the judgment sum.

He found that Palmer’s “failure to engage with the offer did not serve to best facilitate the optimal use of the resources of the court and the parties”.

“Mr Palmer may not be unduly troubled about spending his money on litigation, but he had an obligation to facilitate the just resolution of the dispute according to law, and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.”

Given the mixed result, Lee said some might see “merit in saying a ‘plague on both your houses’ … like the response to the feud between the houses of Montagues and Capulets” – and make no order as to costs.

“But this result would not reflect the reality that it was Mr Palmer who first picked up the cudgels and, even more importantly, would give insufficient weight to their differing approaches to resolving the dispute.

“Both men went too far in their political jousting, and both men litigated, but only one was willing to draw back and avoid a long and costly hearing.”

The judge said on the primary claim, McGowan “should not get his costs” because he had been found to have defamed Palmer, for imputations including that Palmer posed a threat to the people of WA and Australia.

The judge noted McGowan’s argument that “Mr Palmer is $15,000 behind scratch” and had expended “vast costs” to obtain judgment, which only amounted to “chump change”.

But Justice Lee said that Palmer had secured judgment in his favour, “curial recognition that he had been defamed and no defence was available”. That was “no small thing” and a more favourable outcome than McGowan’s offer.

Justice Lee ordered Palmer to pay an as-yet undetermined “lump sum” of McGowan’s costs for the cross-claim from 22 December, a few days after the offer.

McGowan’s cross-claim successfully argued Palmer defamed him with imputations that the premier had lied to the people about the justification for travel bans and “corruptly” sought immunity under laws extinguishing a claim by Mineralogy against the state.

The judge declined to order McGowan costs on the more generous “indemnity” basis, because of the “mixed ultimate result, but also because Mr McGowan increased costs by running a number of points that were not exactly dripping in merit”.

Justice Lee noted the federal court is a “superior court of record”, and court rules aimed to discourage parties from litigating cases that are “unlikely to attract compensatory damages of substance” there.

He said it was not “unreasonable” for McGowan to bring the cross-claim, which he would not have done if Palmer had not sued him in the first place.

“The notion that Mr Palmer and Mr McGowan are equally responsible for these proceedings having consumed significant private and public resources cannot be reconciled with the objective facts.”


Paul Karp

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Clive Palmer and Mark McGowan ordered to pay damages to each other in defamation case
Federal court rules Palmer pay WA premier $20,000, while United Australia party chair is awarded $5,000 after both found liable for defamation

Paul Karp

02, Aug, 2022 @6:12 AM

Article image
UAP candidates scramble for volunteers as Clive Palmer campaigns from Fiji
United Australia party candidates say they don’t expect Palmer will pay people to staff booths on election day, which could sway results

Sarah Martin and Paul Karp

13, May, 2019 @6:00 PM

Article image
Scott Morrison asks Clive Palmer to drop court challenge to WA border closure
After months of backing challenge, Morrison government withdraws from case and asks Palmer to do likewise

Paul Karp

07, Aug, 2020 @7:43 AM

Article image
Clive Palmer cites a cold as he pulls out of testifying to MPs – then fronts media to attack WA premier
Mining magnate urges Mark McGowan to ‘calm down’ amid $30bn legal battle over iron ore

Daniel Hurst

12, Aug, 2020 @5:51 AM

Article image
Question mark over eligibility of at least 19 Clive Palmer candidates
Submissions to Australian Electoral Commission by some United Australia party candidates fail to provide birth details of parents or grandparents

Paul Karp

28, Apr, 2019 @6:00 PM

Article image
UAP candidate plans to sue party over campaign costs it won’t reimburse
Jamal Daoud claims United Australia party ‘mismanagement’ forced him to pay for election materials in Sydney seat of Reid

Paul Karp and Rafqa Touma

04, Jul, 2022 @5:30 PM

Article image
Australia can't afford three years of Clive Palmer calling the shots, Shorten says
Labor leader warns the businessman could turn up in Canberra with ‘a political IOU almost as big as his ego’

Katharine Murphy Political editor

14, May, 2019 @6:00 PM

Article image
Clive Palmer's $100m Aboriginal foundation only has $109 in it, records show
Western Australian government set to investigate the charity and says the businessman has behaved in a ‘disgraceful’ way

Lorena Allam Indigenous affairs editor

03, May, 2019 @12:00 AM

Article image
Clive Palmer's challenge against Western Australia's border ban rejected by high court
Tycoon ordered to pay costs as justices find that emergency laws comply with constitution

Paul Karp

06, Nov, 2020 @3:49 AM

Article image
Elevator rock and a sloshing sea of yellow: Clive Palmer’s Trumpian election campaign ad
Each week we ask experts to break down a political advertisement: who are the candidates trying to reach, and are they succeeding?

Tory Shepherd

21, Apr, 2022 @5:20 AM