Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings (No 2) [2025] QSC 139

ADANI MINING PTY LTD ACN 145 555 205

(First Plaintiff)
AND
CARMICHAEL RAIL NETWORK PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CHARMICHAEL 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:

13 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

The plaintiffs pay 60 % of the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the defendant’s application filed 9 October 2023.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – OTHER CASES – FAILURE IN PORTION OF A CASE – where the application before the Court sought relief in respect of three matters – where parties had varying levels of success – where the defendant was partially successful in obtaining the relief sought– whether costs be apportioned

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681, r 684

Aurizon Network Pty Ltd v  Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QSC 249, cited
J Wright Enterprises Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Port Ballidu Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2010] QSC 214, cited
Vision Eye Institute Ltd & Anor v Kitchen (No 3) [2015] QSC 164, cited

COUNSEL:

D Pyle with M Windsor, for the plaintiffs
C Schneider, for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Dowd + Wilson for the plaintiffs
Marque Lawyers for the defendant

1. BROWN J: The Court heard an application made by the defendant, Mr Pennings, in relation to this matter which occurred over three days.  The application which the Court had to determine was with respect to:

   (a)an application by the defendant to permanently stay proceedings or alternatively strike out in whole or in part of the plaintiffs’ further amended statement of claim (FASOC) (FASOC matters);

   (b)an order to set aside a costs orders or stay the enforcement of that costs order (costs matter); and

   (c)an order by Justice Martin on 11 September 2020 made by this Court in favour of the plaintiffs to release an injunction ordered restraining the defendant (injunction matter).

2. The plaintiffs opposed the relief sought by the defendant.  The Court delivered its decision on 6 December 2024.  The defendant was partially successful in obtaining the relief sought in his application.  The defendant contends he is entitled to all of his costs.

3. In their submissions as to costs, the plaintiffs contend that the Court’s discretion should be exercised in their favour and that the Court should order that the defendant pay the plaintiffs 30 per cent of their costs or alternatively make no order as to costs.  That is submitted on the basis that the defendant failed to achieve his primary objective to have the proceedings permanently stayed or struck out as an abuse of process, the injunction released and costs orders set aside.  The plaintiffs estimate that the issues upon which the defendant enjoyed success would…