Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings - [2020] QCA 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adani Mining Pty Ltd & Anor v Pennings [2020] QCA 169

PARTIES:

ADANI MINING PTY LTD
ACN 145 455 205
(first appellant)
CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK TRUST
ACN 601 738 685
(second appellant)
v
EX PARTE BENJAMIN WILLIAM DEVENISH PENNINGS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6931 of 2020
SC No 6666 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 22 June 2020 (Dalton J)

DELIVERED ON:

17 August 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Philippides JA and Davis J

ORDER:

The application is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DETENTION, INSPECTION AND PRESERVATION – SEARCH ORDERS – OTHER CASES – where the first appellant is the developer of a coal mine in the Galilee Basin in Queensland – where the second appellant is the developer of an associated railway line that is intended to be used to transport coal from the mine to a port – where the respondent is the “principal” of a group of political activists, called the “Galilee Blockade”, whose object is to prevent the development of the mine and the railway – where the appellants applied for an ex parte Anton Piller order against the respondent – where the learned primary judge dismissed the application – where the appellants appeal against that dismissal – where the appeal was heard de novo – whether the Anton Piller order ought to be granted

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 261A, r 261B, r 763

Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55; [1975] EWCA Civ 12, distinguished
Lock International Plc v Beswick [1989] 1 WLR 1268, considered

COUNSEL:

S L Doyle QC, with D J Pyle and M J Doyle, for the first and second appellants
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Dowd & Co for the first and second appellants
No appearance for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: The first appellant, Adani Mining Pty Ltd, is the developer of a coal mine in the Galilee Basin in Queensland. The second appellant, Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd, is the developer of an associated railway line that is intended to be used to transport coal from the mine to a port. The respondent, Mr Benjamin Pennings, has been described in the evidence as the “principal” of a group of political activists, called the “Galilee Blockade”, whose object is to prevent the development of the mine and the railway on the ground that their development and operation will be harmful to the environment.
On 5 June 2020 the appellants filed an application seeking a search order pursuant to r 261A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Dalton J heard the application ex parte on the same day and dismissed it on 22 June 2020. The appellants appealed against that dismissal on 25 June 2020. Like the application itself, the…

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] QCA 169
Decision Date: 17 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adani Mining Pty Ltd and the Galilee Rail Link Company, collectively referred to as the appellants, are developers of a coal mine and associated railway line, respectively, in the Galilee Basin, Queensland. The respondents, including the principal of a group of political activists known as the “Galilee Blockade,” sought to prevent the development of the mine and the railway. The appellants applied for an ex parte Anton Piller order against the respondents, aiming to seize and inspect documents that might provide evidence of the respondents' plans to interfere with their operations. The primary judge dismissed the application, leading to the appellants' appeal. The appeal was heard de novo by the court, which had to decide whether the Anton Piller order should be granted.

The court examined the legal principles underpinning Anton Piller orders, emphasising the need for a strong prima facie case of both wrongdoing and the existence of evidence in the possession of the respondents that would be destroyed if notice were given. The court also considered the proportionality of the order in light of the respondents' rights and freedoms. The appellants needed to demonstrate a high threshold of proof to justify the invasion of privacy and property rights inherent in such an order. The court scrutinised the evidence provided by the appellants to determine if it met the necessary standards.

The court concluded that the appellants had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of wrongdoing or the presence of destructible evidence that would justify the issuance of an Anton Piller order. The evidence provided was insufficient to meet the high threshold required for such an order, and the potential for interference with the respondents' rights was deemed disproportionate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for the Anton Piller order was refused. The court upheld the primary judge's decision, emphasising the stringent requirements for granting such an order and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is refused.

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 [2020] QCA 169
PARTIES:	ADANI MINING PTY LTD ACN 145 455 205 (first appellant) CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK TRUST ACN 601 738 685 (second appellant) v EX PARTE BENJAMIN WILLIAM DEVENISH PENNINGS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6931 of 2020 SC No 6666 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 22 June 2020 (Dalton J)
DELIVERED ON:	17 August 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2020
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Philippides JA and Davis J
ORDER:	The application is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DETENTION, INSPECTION AND PRESERVATION – SEARCH ORDERS – OTHER CASES – where the first appellant is the developer of a coal mine in the Galilee Basin in Queensland – where the second appellant is the developer of an associated railway line that is intended to be used to transport coal from the mine to a port – where the respondent is the “principal” of a group of political activists, called the “Galilee Blockade”, whose object is to prevent the development of the mine and the railway – where the appellants applied for an ex parte Anton Piller order against the respondent – where the learned primary judge dismissed the application – where the appellants appeal against that dismissal – where the appeal was heard de novo – whether the Anton Piller order ought to be granted Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 261A, r 261B, r 763 Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55; [1975] EWCA Civ 12, distinguished Lock International Plc v Beswick [1989] 1 WLR 1268, considered
COUNSEL:	S L Doyle QC, with D J Pyle and M J Doyle, for the first and second appellants No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Dowd & Co for the first and second appellants No appearance for the respondent