Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings - [2021] QSC 162

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adani Mining Pty Ltd & anor v Pennings [2021] QSC 162

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/S:

BS 9186 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2021

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

1.   That the matter be placed on the supervised case list.

2.   That the parties prepare minutes of orders to reflect the reasons within 28 days of the date of this judgment. If the parties fail to agree, the matter will be relisted at a date to be fixed after the parties notify the Associate to Brown J that agreement cannot be reached.

3.   That these reasons will initially be published to the parties only and unless the parties notify the Court that any of the reasons contain confidential material by 4 pm on Wednesday 30 June 2021 they will be published on the Supreme Court Library Queensland website on Thursday 1 July 2021.

4.   That the defendant’s application filed 10 December 2020 be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

5.   That the particulars over which confidentiality has been claimed are to be kept confidential until such time as the defendant’s application for further and better particulars filed 10 December 2020 and confidentiality in respect of those particulars is determined and subject to any order to be made.

6.   That the parties provide submissions as to costs of no more than 5 pages within 28 Days of the date of this judgment.

7.   That there be liberty to apply on the provision of three days notice to the other party or parties.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS – UNDERTAKINGS AND USE OF DOCUMENTS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs apply for a confidentiality regime to be imposed in relation to disclosure of material said to be confidential – where the plaintiffs apply for limitations on the amount of disclosure and the particulars required to be provided – where the plaintiffs claim that the defendant has sought to obtain confidential information for the purposes of frustrating the development of a mine and rail network – where the plaintiff claims the information has the necessary quality of confidence and was received by the defendant in breach of an obligation of confidence – whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying additional protection to an implied obligation of confidentiality – where any regime imposed must strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the parties – whether disclosure should be limited

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 161(2), r 224
Adani Mining Pty Ltd & Anor v…

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: [2021] QSC 162
Decision Date: 25 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings involved the plaintiff, Adani Mining, bringing proceedings against the defendant, Pennings, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the confidentiality and limited disclosure of certain documents that Adani Mining claimed to be confidential and were obtained by Pennings in breach of an obligation of confidence. Adani Mining sought to impose a confidentiality regime on the disclosure process and to limit the scope of disclosure and particulars required. They argued that the information in question was of a confidential nature and was received by Pennings with the intention of frustrating the development of a mine and rail network.

The legal issues before the court included whether there were exceptional circumstances that justified additional protection of an implied obligation of confidentiality, and whether any regime imposed should strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the parties. The court had to determine whether disclosure should be limited and, if so, to what extent. The decision required careful consideration of the principles of confidentiality, the rights of the parties to fair disclosure, and the proportionality of any restrictions placed on disclosure.

In its decision, the court recognised the need for a fair and balanced approach to the disclosure of confidential information. It noted that while there may be circumstances justifying additional protection for confidential information, any regime must also consider the rights of the parties to fair disclosure and the overall fairness of the proceedings. The court ordered that the matter be placed on the supervised case list and that the parties prepare minutes of orders reflecting the reasons within 28 days. It also provided for the limited disclosure of certain particulars and directed the parties to submit costs submissions within the specified timeframe. The court's order aimed to ensure a fair and balanced approach to the disclosure process while protecting the confidentiality of sensitive information.

The court ordered that the matter be placed on the supervised case list, that the parties prepare minutes of orders within 28 days, and that the particulars over which confidentiality had been claimed remain confidential until the defendant's application for further and better particulars was determined. The court also directed the parties to submit costs submissions and provided liberty to apply for further orders on three days' notice. These orders reflected the court's aim to balance the confidentiality interests of the plaintiff with the need for fair disclosure in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court is that:

1. That the matter be placed on the supervised case list.

2. That the parties prepare minutes of orders to reflect the reasons within 28 days of the date of this judgment. If the parties fail to agree, the matter will be relisted at a date to be fixed after the parties notify the Associate to Brown J that agreement cannot be reached.

3. That these reasons will initially be published to the parties only and unless the parties notify the Court that any of the reasons contain confidential material by 4 pm on Wednesday 30 June 2021 they will be published on the Supreme Court Library Queensland website on Thursday 1 July 2021.

4. That the defendant’s application filed 10 December 2020 be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

5. That the particulars over which confidentiality has been claimed are to be kept confidential until such time as the defendant’s application for further and better particulars filed 10 December 2020 and confidentiality in respect of those particulars is determined and subject to any order to be made.

6. That the parties provide submissions as to costs of no more than 5 pages within 28 Days of the date of this judgment.

7. That there be liberty to apply on the provision of three days notice to the other party or parties.

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 & anor v Pennings [2021] QSC 162
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/S:	BS 9186 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 March 2021
JUDGE:	Brown J
ORDER:	The order of the Court is that: 1. That the matter be placed on the supervised case list. 2. That the parties prepare minutes of orders to reflect the reasons within 28 days of the date of this judgment. If the parties fail to agree, the matter will be relisted at a date to be fixed after the parties notify the Associate to Brown J that agreement cannot be reached. 3. That these reasons will initially be published to the parties only and unless the parties notify the Court that any of the reasons contain confidential material by 4 pm on Wednesday 30 June 2021 they will be published on the Supreme Court Library Queensland website on Thursday 1 July 2021. 4. That the defendant’s application filed 10 December 2020 be adjourned to a date to be fixed. 5. That the particulars over which confidentiality has been claimed are to be kept confidential until such time as the defendant’s application for further and better particulars filed 10 December 2020 and confidentiality in respect of those particulars is determined and subject to any order to be made. 6. That the parties provide submissions as to costs of no more than 5 pages within 28 Days of the date of this judgment. 7. That there be liberty to apply on the provision of three days notice to the other party or parties.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS – UNDERTAKINGS AND USE OF DOCUMENTS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs apply for a confidentiality regime to be imposed in relation to disclosure of material said to be confidential – where the plaintiffs apply for limitations on the amount of disclosure and the particulars required to be provided – where the plaintiffs claim that the defendant has sought to obtain confidential information for the purposes of frustrating the development of a mine and rail network – where the plaintiff claims the information has the necessary quality of confidence and was received by the defendant in breach of an obligation of confidence – whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying additional protection to an implied obligation of confidentiality – where any regime imposed must strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the parties – whether disclosure should be limited Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 161(2), r 224 Adani Mining Pty Ltd & Anor v…