Clive Palmer's Mineralogy loses court battle with Citic 'for a litany of reasons'
|
Version 0 of 1. Clive Palmer’s Mineralogy has lost its long-running court battle with its estranged Chinese joint venture partner Citic over the Cape Preston port in Western Australia. The port is the export point for iron ore from the colossal $8bn-plus Sino Iron project, which began production later than planned after a big cost blow-out.Mineralogy sought to terminate Citic’s right to continue using the port after the state-owned enterprise built it, saying it should not have exclusive control of the facility. Related: Clive Palmer wins legal battle against Chinese mining partner Palmer’s private company claimed there had been a breach of an agreement between the companies, arguing it had the ultimate right to operate the port as it owned the mining tenements that comprise the Sino Iron project. Mineralogy had also claimed Citic was blocking other companies from using the port, saying it was unable to tell potential investors in other iron ore projects in the area that they could use it. But federal court justice James Edelman ruled in favour of Citic on Friday, saying Mineralogy should be restrained from acting against its joint venture partner. “Mineralogy’s claims fail for a litany of reasons,” Edelman said. He said Mineralogy had confirmed in 2010, after Citic had spent $6bn on the Sino Iron project, that it did not plan to get involved in the operations, but in 2012 “changed its mind”. “Apart from the mere act of defending these proceedings, the only act which Mineralogy alleged to constitute the breach by the Citic parties was one paragraph in a three-page letter to Mineralogy’s solicitors,” Edelman said. Mineralogy had effectively alleged in the first termination notice that the Chinese company had committed a “serious breach”, Edelman said. Related: Clive Palmer's Mineralogy seeks to end Citic Pacific’s rights to mine his iron ore But the “allegedly offending paragraph” only asserted “that the by-laws attached to the Facilities Deeds were not approved by the relevant government agencies of the state of Western Australia”. Edelman was also critical of how Mineralogy had handled the case. “When there are billions of dollars at stake there can sometimes be an unfortunate tendency to attempt to raise any and every issue that might be thought to be arguable,” he said. “It is even more unfortunate when the case presented is constantly shifting. “With several changes of counsel ... there were a number of attempts by Mineralogy to change its case during trial, often in major respects, and sometimes without any attempt to amend its pleadings. “Even as late as the final day of trial, after millions of dollars had been spent on this litigation, Mineralogy sought to amend four of its five grounds of relief.” Edelman said it was lamentable that the companies remained embroiled in court disputes, with the plaintiff being Mineralogy in some cases and Citic in others. “The litigation between the parties, and the associated uncertainty, might last for years,” he said. “It could consume many more millions of dollars in legal fees. “These consequences offer no advantage to anyone. “They might be avoided if the parties are able to negotiate in a commercial manner, reasonably, and in good faith, towards terms that will clarify their rights and expectations for the long term.” |