Editorial: D-day in Mark McGowan v Clive Palmer court battle

After two years and an untold amount of taxpayer money spent on private lawyers, West Australians will today finally hear the outcome in the long-running defamation battle between Mark McGowan and Clive Palmer.

And there’s likely to be no winners — bar the lawyers.

To recap the sorry saga, in September 2020 Mr Palmer launched a defamation suit against the Premier citing comments he had made including that the mining billionaire was “very selfish” and an “enemy of the State” for his opposition to WA’s hard border and his claim for about $30 billion in damages from the State Government over a disputed iron ore project.

In response, Mr McGowan filed a defamation suit of his own, claiming he had been defamed by Mr Palmer through implications of corruption.

his partly related to his comparison of the Premier with disgraced former US president Richard Nixon and claims that “you go to WA (Mr McGowan) can murder, shoot you, raid your house and he’s immune from the criminal law” — a statement so laden with hyperbole it is laughable to think anyone would take it seriously.

But take it seriously Mr McGowan did. In court, he said statements from Mr Palmer contributed to death threats which were made against him and his family months later.

No one will come out of this spectacle looking good.

Both men claimed the words of the other had hurt their feelings. Really? This coming from Mr Palmer who listed litigation as a hobby in Who’s Who.

And while the insults Mr Palmer directed at the Premier were way out of line, it seemed to only send Mr McGowan’s approval rating higher.

Despite the Premier’s insistence back when he launched the action that he expected Mr Palmer would need to write a “big cheque” to taxpayers, it’s looking more likely we could be lumped with a huge legal bill.

In April, Justice Michael Lee warned Mr McGowan’s lawyers that there was a prospect none of their defences would succeed.

Thankfully, he also said he had struggled to find any reputational damage suffered by either man.

But even without a hefty damages bill, taxpayers will still be on the hook for the money spent on high-priced lawyers engaged by the Labor Government to defend Mr McGowan and countersue.

Today, we should learn just how much this exercise has cost the State..

No one will come out of this spectacle looking good.

And it’s Attorney-General John Quigley who risks looking the most foolish of all.

Mr Quigley had to return to Sydney for a “do-over” of his evidence after a questionable performance on the witness stand described by Justice Lee as “all over the shop”.

He blamed memory loss and the pressures of his job for the obvious errors in his oral JUtestimony.

It comes at a time when several of Mr McGowan’s top ministers are under pressure for sub-par performances in their portfolios.

The last thing the Premier needs is a public dressing down of his attorney-general by a Federal Court judge.