Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings - [2020] QSC 275

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adani Mining Pty Ltd & Anor v Pennings [2020] QSC 275

PARTIES:

ADANI MINING PTY LTD
ACN 145 455 205

(first plaintiff)
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:

9186 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 September 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 September 2020

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

1. The applicants are to bring in minutes of order which reflect these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – GENERALLY – where the first applicant is in the process of developing a proposed coal mine in the northern part of the Galilee Basin – where the second applicant is the proponent and developer of a railway which would connect the first applicant’s mine to the existing rail network – where the respondent is the “principal” of the Galilee Blockade, a group which opposes the first applicant’s proposed mine on environmental grounds – where the applicants have commenced proceedings against the respondent in which the applicants seek, inter alia, damages for intimidation and conspiracy, and injunctions with respect to the use of confidential information and inducing breaches of contract – where the applicants seek prohibitory interlocutory injunctions against the respondent to: restrain the respondent from publishing certain statements, restrain the respondent from seeking to induce or procure any person to disclose particular information to him, and restrain the respondent from using confidential or other information obtained by him through the campaigns he leads – where the applicants adduced evidence that the respondent has caused the Galilee Blockade to: demand that Targeted Contractors terminate their agreements with the applicants or withdraw from negotiations for agreements; threaten that members of the Galilee Blockade would take Direct Action against the Targeted Contractors; encourage others to provide information, confidential or otherwise, to the Galilee Blockade; and, make public the intention to take further action with the aim of preventing the applicants from operating the mine and railway – where the respondent did not adduce any evidence – where the applicants submit that they have made out a prima facie case and that the inconvenience or injury which the applicants would be likely to suffer if the injunction ere refused, outweighs the injury which the defendant would be likely to suffer if the injunction were granted – whether the injunction should be granted

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS – where the applicants adduced evidence that the Galilee Blockade encouraged persons to seek employment with the first respondent for the purpose sharing information with the Galilee Blockade – where the applicants also adduced evidence to support the conclusion that the Galilee Blockade has encouraged persons to share confidential information with the Galilee Blockade via its online platforms – where the applicants…

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: [2020] QSC 275
Decision Date: 11 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings involved the applicants, Adani Mining and QR National, seeking injunctive relief against Mr Pennings, the principal of the Galilee Blockade, who opposed Adani Mining's proposed coal mine on environmental grounds. The applicants sought prohibitory and mandatory interlocutory injunctions against Mr Pennings, aiming to restrain him from publishing certain statements, inducing or procuring any person to disclose particular information, and using confidential or other information obtained through his campaigns. Additionally, the applicants sought to compel Mr Pennings to remove specific content from social media accounts.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had established a prima facie case, the probability of success on the merits, and whether damages would be an adequate remedy. The applicants presented evidence that Mr Pennings had caused the Galilee Blockade to demand that contractors terminate agreements or withdraw from negotiations, threatened direct action against contractors, encouraged the sharing of confidential information, and made public intentions to prevent the applicants from operating the mine and railway. The applicants argued that these actions demonstrated a high degree of assurance that the injunctions were rightly granted at trial, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the ongoing disruption and increased costs.

The court found that the applicants had made out a prima facie case for the relief sought and that there was a high probability of success on the merits. The court also determined that damages would not be an adequate remedy given the ongoing nature of the harm and the difficulty in quantifying it. The balance of convenience was held to favour the applicants, as the potential injury they would suffer without the injunctions outweighed any injury Mr Pennings might suffer if they were granted. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered that the mandatory and prohibitory interlocutory injunctions be granted as sought.

In conclusion, the court made orders in the terms sought by the applicants, requiring them to bring in appropriate minutes reflecting these reasons. The applicants were granted the relief they sought, which aimed to protect their operations and mitigate the ongoing disruption caused by Mr Pennings' activities.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants are to bring in minutes of order which reflect these reasons.

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

It is not said, and could not reasonably be said, by Mr Pennings that he has suffered any detriment as a result of any delay. Rather, the passage of time has simply meant that he has been able to continue his campaign against the applicants.Conclusions and orders The applicants have shown a prima facie case in respect of the prohibitory interlocutory injunctions they seek. They have also provided evidence to support a high degree of assurance that, at trial, it will appear that the mandatory interlocutory injunctions were rightly granted. The balance of convenience favours the applicants. I will make orders in the terms sought by the applicants. They are to bring in appropriate minutes.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Adani Mining Pty Ltd & Anor v Pennings [2020] QSC 275
PARTIES:	ADANI MINING PTY LTD ACN 145 455 205 (first plaintiff) 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:	9186 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 September 2020
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	1. The applicants are to bring in minutes of order which reflect these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – GENERALLY – where the first applicant is in the process of developing a proposed coal mine in the northern part of the Galilee Basin – where the second applicant is the proponent and developer of a railway which would connect the first applicant’s mine to the existing rail network – where the respondent is the “principal” of the Galilee Blockade, a group which opposes the first applicant’s proposed mine on environmental grounds – where the applicants have commenced proceedings against the respondent in which the applicants seek, inter alia, damages for intimidation and conspiracy, and injunctions with respect to the use of confidential information and inducing breaches of contract – where the applicants seek prohibitory interlocutory injunctions against the respondent to: restrain the respondent from publishing certain statements, restrain the respondent from seeking to induce or procure any person to disclose particular information to him, and restrain the respondent from using confidential or other information obtained by him through the campaigns he leads – where the applicants adduced evidence that the respondent has caused the Galilee Blockade to: demand that Targeted Contractors terminate their agreements with the applicants or withdraw from negotiations for agreements; threaten that members of the Galilee Blockade would take Direct Action against the Targeted Contractors; encourage others to provide information, confidential or otherwise, to the Galilee Blockade; and, make public the intention to take further action with the aim of preventing the applicants from operating the mine and railway – where the respondent did not adduce any evidence – where the applicants submit that they have made out a prima facie case and that the inconvenience or injury which the applicants would be likely to suffer if the injunction ere refused, outweighs the injury which the defendant would be likely to suffer if the injunction were granted – whether the injunction should be granted EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS – where the applicants adduced evidence that the Galilee Blockade encouraged persons to seek employment with the first respondent for the purpose sharing information with the Galilee Blockade – where the applicants also adduced evidence to support the conclusion that the Galilee Blockade has encouraged persons to share confidential information with the Galilee Blockade via its online platforms – where the applicants…