❓ A parliamentary question seeks details on legal fees paid by the WA government to law firms for appeal work related to the Andrew Mallard, John Button, and Darryl Beamish cases. The Attorney General's representative provides some information but declines to table specific documents, citing advice from the Solicitor-General.
AnsweredQoN 735Legislative Council
Asked
14 September 2006
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney General
QuestionView source ↗
ANDREW MALLARD CASE - LEGAL FEES
I refer the Attorney General to payment made by the government to the law firm Clayton Utz following its application for work undertaken on the appeals for Andrew Mallard. (1) Why did the government agree to the payment? (2) Will the Attorney General table the firm’s applications and details of what work was done and by whom; and, if not, why not? (3) Have any other law firms been paid for work on appeals for John Button, Darryl Beamish or Andrew Mallard; and, if so, please provide details of which firms and what amounts? Hon SUE ELLERY
I refer the Attorney General to payment made by the government to the law firm Clayton Utz following its application for work undertaken on the appeals for Andrew Mallard. (1) Why did the government agree to the payment? (2) Will the Attorney General table the firm’s applications and details of what work was done and by whom; and, if not, why not? (3) Have any other law firms been paid for work on appeals for John Button, Darryl Beamish or Andrew Mallard; and, if so, please provide details of which firms and what amounts? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(1) Why did the government agree to the payment? (2) Will the Attorney General table the firm’s applications and details of what work was done and by whom; and, if not, why not? (3) Have any other law firms been paid for work on appeals for John Button, Darryl Beamish or Andrew Mallard; and, if so, please provide details of which firms and what amounts? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(2) Will the Attorney General table the firm’s applications and details of what work was done and by whom; and, if not, why not? (3) Have any other law firms been paid for work on appeals for John Button, Darryl Beamish or Andrew Mallard; and, if so, please provide details of which firms and what amounts? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(3) Have any other law firms been paid for work on appeals for John Button, Darryl Beamish or Andrew Mallard; and, if so, please provide details of which firms and what amounts? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(1) Why did the government agree to the payment? (2) Will the Attorney General table the firm’s applications and details of what work was done and by whom; and, if not, why not? (3) Have any other law firms been paid for work on appeals for John Button, Darryl Beamish or Andrew Mallard; and, if so, please provide details of which firms and what amounts? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(2) Will the Attorney General table the firm’s applications and details of what work was done and by whom; and, if not, why not? (3) Have any other law firms been paid for work on appeals for John Button, Darryl Beamish or Andrew Mallard; and, if so, please provide details of which firms and what amounts? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(3) Have any other law firms been paid for work on appeals for John Button, Darryl Beamish or Andrew Mallard; and, if so, please provide details of which firms and what amounts? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(1) The WA Solicitor-General advised that in relation to this appeal, it was important and appropriate that such work be done and payment be made. (2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(2) No. The Solicitor-General considered all of these matters and the government acted on the Solicitor-General’s advice. (3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
(3) In respect of Mr John Button, the appeal was done pro bono. In respect of Mr Darryl Beamish, the appeal was handled by Dawson Davies and payment was made by the government acting on the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Andrew Mallard’s appeal was handled by Clayton Utz and, similarly, the government acted on the advice and recommendations of the Solicitor-General. The amount paid by the government for the Beamish appeal was $75 000, and for the Mallard appeal it was $132 000.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.