Palmer to pay legal costs of failed appeal
CLIVE Palmer is picking up the legal bill of an appeal launched by his absent nephew after it was withdrawn because it was unlikely to succeed.
Clive Mensink yesterday discontinued an appeal against a Supreme Court ruling from August that allowed Queensland Nickel liquidators to serve him material relating to ongoing legal proceedings via post and four email addresses, rather than in person.
That was made as Mr Mensink had left Australia in June 2016, months after the Palmerowned QN collapsed.
He was the sole registered director of the company when it folded with debts of $300 million, causing the loss of hundreds of jobs at its Townsville refinery. Since departing, he has been travelling the world, frustrating two groups of liquidators who desperately want to grill him about how the company was run.
Earlier this year he was tracked to Bulgaria’s capital, Sofia. Lawyer for the liquidators, Matthew Hickey, said Mr Mensink’s discontinued appeal had, apparently, been initiated, persisted upon and ultimately ended by instructions from Mr Palmer.
Even if it had run beyond yesterday, Appeal Court Justice Robert Gotterson didn’t think the appeal, which he described as “futile”, would have had much chance of success.
“Plainly, the notice of appeal was one that should never have been filed in the first place,” he said.
Following a brief argument over costs, he ordered Mr Mensink to pay his opponent’s bills on an indemnity basis, which would lead to a larger reimbursement for more expenses than covered by standard costs provisions. The court heard Mr Palmer, who the Bulletin yesterday revealed had splashed out $4.4 million on two new properties, would pay.
In March, Mr Mensink appealed in the Federal Court against warrants issued after he failed to attend court for questioning over the collapse of QN.
That appeal centred on the discretionary power of the issuing judge and whether proper procedures were taken, but the court will also consider if excuses for not appearing, which Mr Mensink provided in February 2017, were reasonable.
Among them were claims of mental and physical health issues, travel to visit elderly relatives in the Netherlands and that he didn’t need to attend court if not served with orders eight days out from his expected appearance.