Billionaire’s bid to sideline judge, stop criminal case falls flat

Magistrate Cameron McKenzie was not satisfied he had the power under the Justices Act to summarily dismiss the application, and this was upheld in a judicial review before the Supreme Court of Queensland and again in the Court of Appeal last month.

However, part of his application was transferred to the Federal Court to determine whether the magistrate’s decision should be quashed.

Instead, Justice Sam Vandongen ruled in favour of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which sought to have Palmer’s proceedings dismissed under an amended interlocutory application.

Justice Vandongen opted not to entertain Palmer’s application out of concern it could “fragment” the criminal proceedings, noting the Federal Court must “sparingly exercise” these powers only when there are exceptional, special, or compelling circumstances.

“In my view, there is nothing relevantly exceptional, special or compelling about the Palmer application, or that the interests of justice otherwise require this court to hear and determine that application on its merits,” Justice Vandongen said in a decision published last week.

Referring to Palmer’s concerns about the way the Commonwealth parties’ case has been formulated, Justice Vandongen said the magistrate will be “best placed” to address these issues. This, he said, is “among the things a supervising magistrate is required to do”.

VIEW ALL

Four days after the Commonwealth’s application was heard, Justice Vandongen’s associate emailed the parties to inform them he recalled being approached by solicitors for CITIC “with a view to being briefed in relation to a matter or matters involving Palmer and/or Mineralogy”.

Mineralogy and CITIC struck a deal in the late 2000s to allow the latter’s subsidiaries to develop a massive export project at Cape Preston in Western Australia’s Pilbara region, but the relationship broke down and has led to extensive and expensive litigation.

Justice Vandongen, via his associate’s email, said he could not recall what he was told by the solicitors over 10 years ago, but was “unable to discount the possibility that the brief may have concerned the subject matter of one or more of the charges that Palmer now faces”.

The Commonwealth parties did not take issue, but Palmer requested Justice Vandongen recuse himself on the grounds that a reasonable bystander might believe the judge could not bring an impartial mind to the determination of Palmer’s current proceedings.

Palmer also claimed this was a “case of real doubt” and it would therefore be “prudent” of Justice Vandongen “to decide not to continue to sit to avoid the inconvenience that could result if another court were to take a different view of the matter of disqualification”.

Given there was no record of Justice Vandongen being formally briefed in any matter involving Palmer, he said there could be no logical basis for concluding there is “any incompatibility” between his role in relation to CITIC and his role in the Federal Court proceedings.

“It does not logically follow from the mere fact that an approach was made in relation to a potential brief that I have or even might have assumed a role or frame of mind, or that I have otherwise engaged in conduct in support of the CITIC parties or adverse to Palmer’s interests, even if the potential brief did relate to a complaint made by the CITIC parties to police about the PUP payments prosecution.”

Justice Vandongen also refused to decline to sit “as a matter of prudence”.

Citation: Palmer v Magistrate McKenzie [2026] FCA 1080.