The war of words that erupted between Queensland mining heavyweight-turned-politician Clive Palmer and the West Australian Premier Mark McGowan at the height of COVID-19 fears last year will continue to trial, with both parties claiming to have had their reputations tarnished.

Mr Palmer is suing Mr McGowan over six statements made against him from July 30 to August 14, during what came to be known as the $30 billion WA border war that was fought before the High Court of Australia. Mr Palmer claimed he was depicted as “the enemy of West Australia”, with Mr McGowan alleging the billionaire wanted to “bankrupt the state”.

Mining magnate Clive Palmer and WA Premier Mark McGowan are still destined for the courts.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen/Trevor Collens

Mr McGowan is countersuing, calling into question nine “embarrassing” statements Mr Palmer made in a month-long media campaign starting on August 1 in which the Premier was accused of having “lied to the people of Western Australia” and was “abusing the parliamentary system”.

Mr Palmer at the time was also the United Australia Party leader, as well as representing his Mineralogy business interests.

Before the High Court, Mr McGowan had to defend his decision to shut WA’s borders to interstate travellers, including to Mr Palmer, who insisted on entering to visit his mining interests in the state.

But the businessman lost the High Court challenge on November 5, after Chief Justice Susan Kiefel found the WA government had not breached the Commonwealth constitution in enacting state emergency measures to stop the spread of the virus.

Four days later Mr McGowan’s legal team applied to strike out Mr Palmer’s “contextual truth” defence for the nine statements on the grounds that they are incapable of arising from the statements, or are pleaded in an imprecise and deficient form.

Contextual truth arguments almost double down on defamatory allegations by seeking to suggest that a person couldn’t have been defamed on the grounds they seek because it should be viewed in the context of other “truthful” imputations; which in this case would mean showing how the Premier lied and abused the political process in his handling of the virus.

Mr Palmer asserted that 29 contextual imputations arose from his statements against Mr McGowan, which were first aired in an Australian Associated Press article, followed by interviews on Sky News, ABC radio and an advertisement taken out in The West Australian titled “Cover Up”.

The allegations ranged from misleading West Australians over health advice to abusing his position as Premier by passing laws that indemnified the government from criminal liability and abolishing the rights of media from making freedom of information applications and natural justice rights, such as appeals.

Mr Palmer also claimed the Premier embarked on a personal attack and was “a dishonourable man”.

In his judgment on Tuesday, Federal Court of Australia Justice Richard White said: “I have read, and reread, the ninth impugned matter but have not been able to discern on even an arguable basis that an imputation that Mr McGowan was a dishonourable man was being conveyed.”

A handful of contextual imputations presented by Mr Palmer’s legal team have been ruled out, and two were withdrawn, but the vast majority remain for a jury to decide.

The judgment did not affect Mr Palmer’s original defamation lawsuit against Mr McGowan.

In a press conference on Tuesday, Mr McGowan dismissed having any concerns over the case.

“His case has no merit. So paying Mr Palmer money is not something we’re going to be doing,” he said.

“He has a long history of taking these things to the brink of being heard, and then withdrawing.”

Most Viewed in National

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article