Clive Palmer ordered to pay $13m after claim of being ‘foreign investor’ in Australian mining project thrown out | Clive Palmer
The Australian mining boss Clive Palmer was ordered to pay more than $ 13 million after the claim that his claim to be a “foreign investor dı was rejected by an international court after a dispute for more than a decade.
Michelle Rowland rejected Palmer’s claim because there was no jurisdiction of the disagreement between a national government and one of the citizens of the permanent arbitration court, the permanent Arbitration Court of Government.
“Mr Palmer is not ‘foreign investor’ and does not have any benefits of Australia within the scope of free trade and investment agreements,” he said.
Registration: AU Breaking News E -Post
The government asked the court’s decision to withdraw Palmer’s other international allegations against Commonwealth, but will continue to defend them.
“Australia should never have to defend the claim of an investor brought by an Australian citizen of an Australian citizen of over $ 13 million,” he said.
A Singapore investment company owned by Palmer claimed that it has damaged $ 200 billion (A305 billion dollars) after the prevention of a mining proposal in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.
The case against Commonwealth defended violations of the ASEAN-Australian-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.
The WA government was examined in 2020 due to the first rejection in 2012 due to the legislation that prevented the sought -after damages regarding the dispute.
After rejecting the difficulty of the Supreme Court, Palmer claimed that the process of blocking the project in the notification of arbitration to the international court claimed that the “a ‘banana republic’ actions’.
The court’s decision, not yet announced to the public, Palmer’a ordered to pay $ 13.6 million.
In September 2024, the dispute was subjected to a three -day hearing on judicial authority and acceptability in Hague.
In 2023, New South Wales Associate Professor Jonathan Bonnitcha’s New South Wales Associate Professor Jonathan Bonnitcha was difficult to predict the expectations of the case, which was difficult to specify.
“Each one has a unique referee combination and the case documents are not open to public,” he said.
“Moreover, the courts are not bound by precedent… Courts often sympathize with foreign investor claims about the retrospective legislation that interferes with ongoing or concluded legal proceedings.”
A spokesman said Palmer would review the judiciary.
