Clive Palmer said he would try to challenge Australia in a Swiss court after an international tribunal shut down his claim against the country over a blocked mining proposal in Western Australia.
The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland is to be Clive Palmer’s next step in challenging Australia on a decision to block a mining proposal in Western Australia’s Pilbara region, the billionaire businessman and politician said in a statement on Sunday, 28 September.
It followed a decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to dismiss Palmer’s “foreign investor” claim for $305 billion in damages, brought on behalf of Singapore-based investment company, Zeph Investments.
The announcement put a swift end to a statement from Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, who said she had hoped the decision would lead to Palmer withdrawing three other claims against Australia.
“Australia should never have had to spend two years and over $13 million defending an investor-state claim brought by an Australian national,” Rowland said over the weekend.
“The Albanese government remains committed to actively engaging in processes to remove or reform existing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms.”
West Australian Attorney-General Tony Buti said he had also hoped the decision would “close the book on this long-running saga”.
The claim for damages was linked to an unsuccessful bid in the High Court of Australia over 2020 West Australian legislation that prohibited Palmer from bringing action against the state over its decision to refuse him a permit for the Pilbara mines.
Palmer said the law was “targeted, weaponised legislation”, and his financial losses were worsened because it meant he was unable to sell the project to a Chinese company.
He claimed the legislation breached the ASEAN-Australian-New Zealand free trade agreement.
The international tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over a dispute between a national government and one of its citizens.
Palmer was ordered to pay Australia’s costs of $13.6 million.
Jonathan Bonnitcha, associate professor in international law at UNSW, said the tribunal’s decision was the “best outcome” the Australian government could have hoped for.
“This decision puts Australia in a strong position to defend the remaining three cases,” Bonnitcha said.
“The Australian government no longer includes ISDS provisions in its trade and investment agreements.
“The Palmer saga shows why the Australian government is right to reject ISDS.”
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
