Clive Palmer, an Australian mining magnate, has been ordered to pay over $13 million after an international tribunal dismissed his claim of being a "foreign investor." This ruling comes after a dispute that has lasted more than a decade. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, an intergovernmental body, stated it had no jurisdiction over the case, which involved a national government and one of its citizens, according to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland.

Rowland emphasized, "Palmer is not a 'foreign investor' and is not entitled to any benefits under Australia’s free trade and investment agreements." The Australian government expressed hope that this ruling would lead Palmer to withdraw other international claims against the commonwealth, although it will continue to defend those claims.

"Australia should never have had to spend two years and over $13 million defending an investor-state claim brought by an Australian national," Rowland added. Palmer's Singaporean investment company had sought damages totaling nearly $200 billion (approximately $305 billion AUD) after a mining proposal in the Western Australia Pilbara region was blocked.

The case against the commonwealth alleged breaches of the ASEAN-Australian-New Zealand free trade agreement. The Western Australia government faced scrutiny for legislation enacted in 2020 that prevented damages from being sought in relation to this dispute, which traces back to an initial rejection in 2012.

In a notice of arbitration to the tribunal, Palmer described the blocking of his project as "akin to the actions of a 'banana republic'" after the High Court rejected his challenge. The tribunal's decision, which has not yet been made public, ordered Palmer to pay costs amounting to $13.6 million.

The dispute was the subject of a three-day hearing in The Hague regarding jurisdiction and admissibility, which took place in September 2024. The outcome of this case, like others presented to the tribunal, remains uncertain. Jonathan Bonnitcha, an associate professor at UNSW, noted in 2023, "Each has a unique combination of arbitrators, and the case documents are not public. Moreover, tribunals are not bound by precedent... tribunals are generally sympathetic to foreign investor claims relating to retroactive legislation interfering with ongoing or concluded legal proceedings."

A spokesman for Palmer stated that he will review the judgment.