Clive Palmer’s Mineralogy is being given one last chance to refine its $19 million case against Chinese-owned CITIC, after parts were branded “legally embarrassing” in the Supreme Court.
Clive Palmer’s Mineralogy is being given one last chance to refine its $19 million case against Chinese-owned CITIC, after parts were branded “unacceptable” and “legally embarrassing” in the Supreme Court.
The mining giant launched legal action against Sino Iron, Korean Steel and owner CITIC Pacific last year, which hinges on a clause buried in the mining right and site lease agreements they inked in 2006.
Under the clause, Mineralogy claims the agreement stipulated that Sino Iron and Korean Steel would foot the bill for any costs it incurred administering the deals; with CITIC serving as their guarantor.
Mineralogy has argued that it extends to covering costs in the order of $19.3 million, most of which is in fees stemming from lawsuits over the deal; which have been fought across five courts of varying jurisdictions.
The rest of the funds are described as “internal costs” and “other legal fees” incurred between 2013 and 2020, which CITIC alleged contained no real details as to the nature or character of the fees described.
The case is just one of the 34 legal stoushes between the pair, who have both reaped the benefits of the success of the Sino Iron magnetite project in the Pilbara, which is operated by CITIC on land owned by the mining magnate’s company.
But the parties have remained at odds over whether Mineralogy’s claim sufficiently elaborated on how and why those fees fell under the contractual clause.
Over the past year, Mineralogy has made several changes to the original claim, including slashing the amount claimed down from $27.3 million.
But CITIC has insisted there are gaping holes in the information presented.
In a judgment handed down late on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Martin said the inadequacy in the details provided was “unsatisfactory” and “legally embarrassing”, giving Mineralogy one final chance to strengthen its case.
He also highlighted that there had been little to no explanation regarding Mineralogy’s push to reverse a former position and remove over two-thirds of its former pleas.
“The ongoing inadequacy of details as to providing and exposing to scrutiny some proper basis in fact for finding a linkage to 'costs in administering' is presently at a level of legal embarrassment,” he said.
“Until the missing essential information is provided, a trial could not viably proceed.”
“The current Mineralogy plea is not reliably or sufficiently assembled to support such an exercise being viable or helpful at this stage.”
