Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings

Link copied
Case Copied 75 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings [2024] QSC 302

PARTIES:

ADANI MINING PTY LTD ACN 145 555 205

(First Plaintiff)

AND

CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK TRUST ACN 601 738 685

(Second Plaintiff)

v

BENJAMIN WILLIAM DEVENISH PENNINGS

(Defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 9186 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 December 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29-30 January 2024 and 26 February 2024

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDERS:

1.   The following paragraphs of the FASOC are struck out with liberty to replead:

(a) [46] to [57A];

(b) [63], [65] and [66];

(c) [67] to [73A]; and

(d) [78] to [82].

2.   The plaintiffs are to file and serve a second further amended statement of claim by 14 February 2025.

3.   The plaintiffs’ solicitor is to file and serve an affidavit deposing that it has made any necessary investigations required to replead [63] and [66], and is satisfied that there is a reasonable cause of action in relation to Downer and that they have provided the second further amended statement of claim to their clients to provide instructions that they have reviewed the second further amended statement of claim and have instructed that it can be filed in that form.

4.   The enforcement of:

(a)     paragraph [7] of the Orders made in this proceeding by Brown J dated 29 July 2021; and

(b)     paragraphs [11(a)], [11(b)] and [11(c)] of the Orders made in this proceeding by Callaghan J dated 8 March 2022,

is stayed until the determination of the proceeding or earlier order.

5.   The amended application is otherwise dismissed.

6.   The parties have liberty to apply for any further order that may be required to give effect to Order 4.

7.   The parties are to provide submissions as to costs by 31 January 2025.

8.   The Resolution Registrar, in consultation with the supervised case list manager, is to list this matter for review at the earliest available date after 14 February 2025 before a supervised case list judge for directions.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – MISCELLANEOUS TORTS – CONSPIRING TO INJURE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where plaintiffs alleged unlawful conspiracy to injure against the defendant – where plaintiffs alleged lawful means conspiracy in the alternative to unlawful means conspiracy – where pleadings do not clearly distinguish between unlawful means conspiracy and lawful means conspiracy – whether pleadings fail to specify the unlawful means agreed to be employed and the facts or circumstances which made them unlawful – whether pleadings do not establish necessary causal relationship between unlawful conduct and loss and damage

TORTS – MISCELLANEOUS TORTS – INTIMIDATION – where the plaintiffs allege that the defendant has engaged in tortious intimidation such that he is liable to pay damages –where the plaintiffs allege that certain targeted contractors withdrew from negotiations with the plaintiffs as a result of threats and demands issued by the defendant – whether the plaintiffs properly plead the…

CaseChat AU logo

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
[2024] QSC 302
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings involved the plaintiffs, Adani Mining and the Carmichael Coal Project, who alleged a conspiracy to injure against the defendant, Mr Pennings. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs' claims included an unlawful conspiracy to injure, intimidation, and international interference with contract. The defendant sought to strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' statement of claim and to set aside interlocutory injunctions, and to stay enforcement of costs orders.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs' pleadings sufficiently established the necessary elements for each of the claims, particularly whether the unlawful means and causal relationships were adequately pleaded. In relation to the conspiracy to injure claim, the court found that the pleadings failed to clearly distinguish between unlawful and lawful means conspiracy and did not establish the necessary causal relationship between the alleged unlawful conduct and the loss and damage claimed. For the intimidation claim, the court found that the plaintiffs had not properly pleaded the causal link between the alleged loss to the plaintiffs and the termination of negotiations by contractors and sub-contractors as a result of threats and demands made by the defendant. The plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief for international interference with contract was also found to be inadequate as the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable basis upon which it could be found that the alleged future acts of tortious interference would occur.

The court ruled that certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' statement of claim were to be struck out with liberty to replead. The enforcement of certain costs orders was stayed until the determination of the proceeding. The interlocutory injunctions were to remain in place until the matter was reviewed by a supervised case list judge. The defendant's application to permanently stay the proceedings as an abuse of process or to strike the proceedings with no leave to re-plead was dismissed. The parties were directed to provide submissions on costs and the matter was listed for review.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The following paragraphs of the FASOC are struck out with liberty to replead:

(a) [46] to [57A];

(b) [63], [65] and [66];

(c) [67] to [73A]; and

(d) [78] to [82].

2. The plaintiffs are to file and serve a second further amended statement of claim by 14 February 2025.

3. The plaintiffs’ solicitor is to file and serve an affidavit deposing that it has made any necessary investigations required to replead [63] and [66], and is satisfied that there is a reasonable cause of action in relation to Downer and that they have provided the second further amended statement of claim to their clients to provide instructions that they have reviewed the second further amended statement of claim and have instructed that it can be filed in that form.

4. The enforcement of:

(a) paragraph [7] of the Orders made in this proceeding by Brown J dated 29 July 2021; and

(b) paragraphs [11(a)], [11(b)] and [11(c)] of the Orders made in this proceeding by Callaghan J dated 8 March 2022,

is stayed until the determination of the proceeding or earlier order.

5. The amended application is otherwise dismissed.

6. The parties have liberty to apply for any further order that may be required to give effect to Order 4.

7. The parties are to provide submissions as to costs by 31 January 2025.

8. The Resolution Registrar, in consultation with the supervised case list manager, is to list this matter for review at the earliest available date after 14 February 2025 before a supervised case list judge for directions.

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.