Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings - [2025] QSC 62

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings [2025] QSC 62

PARTIES:

ADANI MINING PTY LTD CAN 145 555 205
(First Plaintiff)
AND
CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK TRUST CAN 601 738 685
(Second Plaintiff)
v

BENJAMIN WILLIAM DEVENISH PENNINGS

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS9186/20

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 March 2025

JUDGE:

Freeburn J

ORDER:

1.   By 4 pm on 28 April 2025 the defendant is to:

(a)   file and serve a further amended defence; and

(b) give the plaintiff written notice of any objections it has to the statement of claim that was filed and served on 14 March 2025.

2.   By 4 pm on 16 May 2025 the plaintiffs are to file and serve:

(a)   any reply to the further amended defence;

(b) its response to any written notice of objections to the statement of claim;

(c)   in respect of each lay witness, affidavits containing the evidence-in-chief that the plaintiffs intend to rely on at trial;

(d) in respect of each lay witness for which an affidavit is unable to be procured, a summary of the evidence which the plaintiffs expect that witness to give at trial;

(e)   any expert reports that they intend to rely on at trial.

3.   By 3 pm on 30 May 2025 the defendant is to file and serve:

(a)   A report to the associate to Freeburn J on whether it proposes to bring an application in respect of the written objections to the statement of claim and, if so, the parties’ time estimates and proposed directions for the hearing of that application;

(b) in respect of each lay witness, affidavits containing the evidence-in-chief that the defendant intends to rely on at trial;

(c)   in respect of each lay witness for whom an affidavit is unable to be procured, a summary of the evidence which the defendant expects that witness to give at trial;

(d) any expert reports that they intend to rely on at trial.

4.   In the event that either party requires a confidentiality regime, a draft order be provided to the opposite party and:

(a)   if agreed, that proposed order be sent to the associate to Freeburn J as a proposed consent order;

(b) if not agreed, the parties will provide submissions and proposed orders to the associate to Freeburn J and a request for a further review.

5.   The proceeding be further reviewed at 9:15am on 2 June 2025.

6.   Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORTY COURTS – CASE MANAGEMENT – GENERALLY – where the matter was reviewed as a Supervised case – where the review was for case management and timetabling – where the parties sought separate and conflicting draft orders – where the proceeding was commenced four and a half years ago – where the proceeding’s procedural history consists of a considerable number of interlocutory applications…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QSC 62
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings involved a review of the management and timetabling of a civil proceeding. The matter had been ongoing for four and a half years, with a significant procedural history marked by numerous interlocutory applications. The parties presented conflicting draft orders, and the case was reviewed to determine the appropriate directions that would meaningfully progress the proceeding towards a trial. The court was tasked with deciding whether the proposed directions orders of either party should be made.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate case management and timetabling orders for the proceeding. The court needed to consider the procedural history of the case, the need for meaningful progress towards a trial, and the specific orders proposed by each party. The court was required to balance the need for efficient case management against the complexity of the issues and the extensive procedural history of the case.

The court held that the proposed directions orders of the parties should be modified to ensure meaningful progress towards a trial. The court set specific deadlines for the filing and serving of further amended defences, replies, witness affidavits, and expert reports. The court also provided for the possibility of a confidentiality regime and scheduled a further review of the case. The orders were designed to ensure that the proceeding moved forward efficiently while accommodating the procedural complexities of the case.

The court made several orders to facilitate the progression of the case towards a trial. The defendant was required to file and serve a further amended defence and notify the plaintiff of any objections to the statement of claim by a specified date. The plaintiffs were required to file and serve a reply to the further amended defence, their response to any objections, witness affidavits, and expert reports by another specified date. The defendant was required to file and serve a report on any proposed application regarding objections to the statement of claim, along with witness affidavits and expert reports. The court also provided for the possibility of a confidentiality regime and scheduled a further review of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. By 4 pm on 28 April 2025 the defendant is to:

(a) file and serve a further amended defence; and

(b) give the plaintiff written notice of any objections it has to the statement of claim that was filed and served on 14 March 2025.

2. By 4 pm on 16 May 2025 the plaintiffs are to file and serve:

(a) any reply to the further amended defence;

(b) its response to any written notice of objections to the statement of claim;

(c) in respect of each lay witness, affidavits containing the evidence-in-chief that the plaintiffs intend to rely on at trial;

(d) in respect of each lay witness for which an affidavit is unable to be procured, a summary of the evidence which the plaintiffs expect that witness to give at trial;

(e) any expert reports that they intend to rely on at trial.

3. By 3 pm on 30 May 2025 the defendant is to file and serve:

(a) A report to the associate to Freeburn J on whether it proposes to bring an application in respect of the written objections to the statement of claim and, if so, the parties’ time estimates and proposed directions for the hearing of that application;

(b) in respect of each lay witness, affidavits containing the evidence-in-chief that the defendant intends to rely on at trial;

(c) in respect of each lay witness for whom an affidavit is unable to be procured, a summary of the evidence which the defendant expects that witness to give at trial;

(d) any expert reports that they intend to rely on at trial.

4. In the event that either party requires a confidentiality regime, a draft order be provided to the opposite party and:

(a) if agreed, that proposed order be sent to the associate to Freeburn J as a proposed consent order;

(b) if not agreed, the parties will provide submissions and proposed orders to the associate to Freeburn J and a request for a further review.

5. The proceeding be further reviewed at 9:15am on 2 June 2025.

6. Costs reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings [2025] QSC 62
PARTIES:	ADANI MINING PTY LTD CAN 145 555 205 (First Plaintiff) AND CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK TRUST CAN 601 738 685 (Second Plaintiff) v BENJAMIN WILLIAM DEVENISH PENNINGS (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS9186/20
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 March 2025
JUDGE:	Freeburn J
ORDER:	1. By 4 pm on 28 April 2025 the defendant is to: (a) file and serve a further amended defence; and (b) give the plaintiff written notice of any objections it has to the statement of claim that was filed and served on 14 March 2025. 2. By 4 pm on 16 May 2025 the plaintiffs are to file and serve: (a) any reply to the further amended defence; (b) its response to any written notice of objections to the statement of claim; (c) in respect of each lay witness, affidavits containing the evidence-in-chief that the plaintiffs intend to rely on at trial; (d) in respect of each lay witness for which an affidavit is unable to be procured, a summary of the evidence which the plaintiffs expect that witness to give at trial; (e) any expert reports that they intend to rely on at trial. 3. By 3 pm on 30 May 2025 the defendant is to file and serve: (a) A report to the associate to Freeburn J on whether it proposes to bring an application in respect of the written objections to the statement of claim and, if so, the parties’ time estimates and proposed directions for the hearing of that application; (b) in respect of each lay witness, affidavits containing the evidence-in-chief that the defendant intends to rely on at trial; (c) in respect of each lay witness for whom an affidavit is unable to be procured, a summary of the evidence which the defendant expects that witness to give at trial; (d) any expert reports that they intend to rely on at trial. 4. In the event that either party requires a confidentiality regime, a draft order be provided to the opposite party and: (a) if agreed, that proposed order be sent to the associate to Freeburn J as a proposed consent order; (b) if not agreed, the parties will provide submissions and proposed orders to the associate to Freeburn J and a request for a further review. 5. The proceeding be further reviewed at 9:15am on 2 June 2025. 6. Costs reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORTY COURTS – CASE MANAGEMENT – GENERALLY – where the matter was reviewed as a Supervised case – where the review was for case management and timetabling – where the parties sought separate and conflicting draft orders – where the proceeding was commenced four and a half years ago – where the proceeding’s procedural history consists of a considerable number of interlocutory applications…