Great news! Clive Palmer loses in another attempt to make himself richer via another spurious lawsuit

[onetrack]

This news makes my day. Clive Palmer has lost his bid to extract $300B (yes, you read it right) out of the Australian Govt, over the purported losses associated with his Balmoral South mining lease in W.A., whereby the W.A. Govt stopped Palmer from selling the lease to the Chinese in 2012.

 

Palmer has been running lawsuit after lawsuit, complaining about his future multi-billion-dollar earnings losses by this horrible W.A. Govt. The W.A. Govt even enacted a law to ensure Palmer couldn't make claims against the State of W.A. over  the canned project. He sued the W.A. Govt for $30B and lost. The High Court decided the W.A. legislation was legal and proper.

 

So Clive transferred ownership of his main company, Mineralogy, to a Singaporean-based company, Zeph investments in 2019. Naturally, Clive owns 100% of Zeph Investments - but now, he claims he's officially a "foreign investor" in Australia - and this restructuring allows Palmer to claim foreign investor status under the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), and thereby allows him to sue the Commonwealth of Australia through international tribunals.

 

But unfortunately for Clive, the Swiss Tribunal has seen through Clives sham company actions, told him he hasn't got a legal leg to stand on - and has ordered him to pay the Commonwealth of Australia's tribunal costs - AU$13.6M.

Of course, for a bloke worth North of AU$20B, AU$13.6M is only pocket change.

 

I think, like many others do, that Clive should be declared a vexatious litigant for his constant lawsuits, all based on the flimsiest of reasons, and all simply trying to unjustly enrich himself, constantly. I suppose he does share his wealth around, he must keep a lot of lawyers in new Beemers and Mercedes.

 

Clives loses his "Foreign Investor" lawsuit - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-27/clive-palmer-foreign-investor-claim-dismissed/105823966

 

The background - https://www.hfw.com/insights/clive-palmer-v-the-commonwealth-of-australia/

[facthunter]

Poor OLD BIG Clive takes another well deserved DIVE. Ha Ha .   Time Wounds ALL Heels they say.  Nev

[onetrack]

Clive's on a bit of a losing wicket in recent times. He forked out $60M in the last Australian Federal election, to only garner 1.85% of the vote, and to end up with no seats as well. 

 

[Litespeed]

Poor bugger....

 

Give him a seat, strap him in and turn on the current...

[facthunter]

To quick and a bit Unclassy. I think the death sentence is Barbaric. Nev

[Marty_d]

Take his $20b, use it to provide health care and education to an entire third world country, and let him keep $3m to retire on.

How much does one person need?

[onetrack]

Clive obviously needs $300B to survive on. Anything less, and he's off to the courts, to try and wring some more money out of someone/some Govt/some business, who has offended him in his quest to own everything.

[facthunter]

He Looks as though He doesn't have sufficient Vitality to Preserve Himself from Putrefaction. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

They really should have a law for continually vexatious litigants such as Chump and Palmer (is he called that because of what he often wraps around with his palm?).. If there is more than a small number of frivilous claims broght to court within a certain period of time you have to pay:

• The courts costs and the costs of secondary administration (lists maintenance, paying the salaries of support staff, rent, etc). 
• The cost of your advesaries, including their time in court and the opportunity cost of their time had they directed it to somethng more productive. 
• The costs of the delays to other litigants beihnd  you... cvost of them not having their cases heard and cleared up - i.e. the cost that was incured for the situation they were brining to court to be remedied for the time of the delay you caused. 
• Because you're abusing the court system which is already  expensivee and not easily available to the masses, a substantial contribution to a legal aid fund to make law more accessible to everyone. 

In addition, the their lawyers can't evidence that they clearly recommended to their client that the case was not winnable (or highly likely to lose) with a clear recommendation not to proceed, then they should also be liable to paying the same amount as awared agains the frivilous plaintiff/claimant for being in dereliction of their duty. Remember, I am talking frivilous and no chance of winning; i.e. initimidation, not a case that has even a 10% chance of winning - sometimes they have to be contested to clraify the law. 

 

Suddenly, the courts may not be so clogged.

[facthunter]

Can't have that. The Judges like to live in the Manner to which they have become accustomed. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

There are plenty of cases to be heard without frvilous ones.. and contrinbuting to legal aid just means more people get to bring more expensive cases... Anyway, judges are salaried, so they get the same whether they are in court or not..

 

They usually make their money while they are barristers. 

 

When I lived in San Francisco, I teased a lawyer who was doing her California bar exam, citing she wanted to become a judge... My response was, "with the money attorneys make, what... are you not a good lawyer?"

 

I wasn't prepared for the tirade that came... 

[facthunter]

Perhaps you should read Dale Carnegies Book. "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?  I don't think Subtlety is your Problem.. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

It was a targeted jibe amongst friends.. 

[facthunter]

Not a "Put Down" in any way?  OK then. Nev