Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings

The case of Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings involved a dispute in the Queensland Supreme Court over the provision of particulars in civil proceedings. The plaintiff, Adani Mining, sought orders for the defendant, Mr Pennings, to provide confidential particulars by example, to establish a confidentiality regime concerning those particulars, and to defer the provision of further particulars pending disclosure by the defendant. The defendant, in turn, sought further and better particulars. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff's requests were permissible and if they would cause any prejudice to the defendant.

The court examined the principles applicable to the deferral of particulars pending disclosure. It noted that while there was no specific authority for the proposed course, the court's power to limit the provision of particulars could be exercised to overcome the potential oppression arising from providing particulars for numerous contracts and negotiations. The court concluded that, provided the plaintiff adhered to certain concessions, the wide terms of rule 16.1 could accommodate the request. Additionally, the court found that particulars by example did not need to be disclosed as they did not raise any expectations for the defendant and would not prejudice the defendant's case. The court also considered the need for non-disclosure, as outlined by Brown J in a previous case.

Regarding the deferral of the provision of further particulars pending disclosure by the defendant, the court found that there was a discretion to make such orders. The court outlined several factors to consider when exercising this discretion, including the plaintiffs' efforts to obtain information, the precision with which they had identified the nature of their case, and whether there was a discernible factual foundation for their case. The court concluded that the plaintiff's request could be granted in part, as the interests of justice would be served by permitting such a course.

In summary, the court allowed the plaintiff's first and second applications, granted the third application in part, and dismissed the defendant's application. The parties were required to prepare minutes of the orders reflecting the reasons and submissions as to costs by 4 February 2022. If the parties could not agree on the minutes, the matter would be relisted at a date to be fixed after the parties notified the court's Associate that agreement could not be reached.