Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings (No 3) - [2025] QSC 264

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings (No 3) [2025] QSC 264

PARTIES:

ADANI MINING PTY LTD ACN 145 555 205

(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/S:

SC No 9186 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2025

JUDGE:

Freeburn J

ORDERS:

1.   The plaintiff’s application filed on 18 June is dismissed.

2.   The defendant’s application filed on 27 June is dismissed.

3.   I will hear the parties on costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – Where the plaintiffs brought a two-phase application – where phase one of the plaintiffs’ application seeks orders requiring the defendant to answer questions (or interrogatories) – where phase two of the application seeks orders relieving the plaintiffs from their burden of proof in respect of 24 allegations – where the plaintiffs argue the defendant has abused the court’s processes by taking steps after the commencement of the proceedings to intentionally destroy or remove documentary evidence from his possession or control – where the court can grant leave to issue interrogatories pursuant to rules 229 and 230 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where delay is relevant to the court’s discretion – whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to issue interrogatories

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS ANSWERING PLEADINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where the defendant brings a cross-application to seek dispensation from the usual rules of pleading and to be relieved of any requirement to file and serve affidavits by way of evidence-in-chief – where the basis of the defendant’s cross application is his right to privilege against self-incrimination – where the defendant must show, or it must be clear, that there is a real and appreciable risk of criminal prosecution or a tendency to expose a person to penalty – whether the court should grant the defendant leave to dispense from the usual rules of pleading and to be relieved of any requirement to file and serve affidavits by way of evidence-in-chief

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 223(2)(b), r 229, r 230, r 367

Anderson v Australian Securities and Investment Commission (2013) 297 ALR 546; [2012] QCA 301, cited
CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 2) [2012] VSC 149 at [18], cited
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi (2021) 273 CLR 235; [2021] HCA 22, applied

Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 153 CLR 281; [1983] HCA 10, cited

COUNSEL:

DB O’Sullivan KC, with E L Robinson and A J Schriffer, for the plaintiffs

M Hodge KC, with C Schneider, for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Dowd + Wilson for the plaintiffs
Marque Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

This is a collection of further interlocutory disputes…

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 (No 3) 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: [2025] QSC 264
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings (No 3) involved the plaintiffs, Adani Mining, seeking orders from the court to compel the defendant, Mr. Pennings, to respond to interrogatories and to relieve them from the burden of proof for certain allegations. The dispute centred around claims that Mr. Pennings had intentionally destroyed or removed documentary evidence after the proceedings had begun. The plaintiffs argued that this constituted an abuse of the court's processes, warranting the issuance of interrogatories. Conversely, Mr. Pennings sought relief from the requirement to file and serve affidavits, citing his right to privilege against self-incrimination. The court was tasked with deciding whether to grant the plaintiffs' application for interrogatories and whether to allow Mr. Pennings to be exempt from the usual rules of pleading.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it should exercise its discretion to grant leave to issue interrogatories under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), considering the relevance of delay, and whether Mr. Pennings' right to privilege against self-incrimination warranted dispensation from the usual rules of pleading. The court considered the plaintiffs' arguments about the alleged abuse of court processes and weighed them against Mr. Pennings' assertion of his right to privilege. The court also needed to assess if there was a real and appreciable risk of criminal prosecution or a tendency to expose Mr. Pennings to penalty, which could substantiate his claim of privilege.

In ruling on the applications, the court found that it should not exercise its discretion to grant leave to issue interrogatories as the plaintiffs had not adequately demonstrated an abuse of court process warranting such an order. The court also dismissed Mr. Pennings' cross-application, finding that he had not shown a real and appreciable risk of criminal prosecution or a tendency to expose himself to penalty. Consequently, the court ruled against both applications, highlighting the importance of each party adhering to the procedural requirements set forth in the rules. The court further indicated that it would hear the parties on costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s application filed on 18 June is dismissed.

2. The defendant’s application filed on 27 June is dismissed.

3. I will hear the parties on costs.

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 v Pennings (No 3) [2025] QSC 264
PARTIES:	ADANI MINING PTY LTD ACN 145 555 205 (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/S:	SC No 9186 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 August 2025
JUDGE:	Freeburn J
ORDERS:	1. The plaintiff’s application filed on 18 June is dismissed. 2. The defendant’s application filed on 27 June is dismissed. 3. I will hear the parties on costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – Where the plaintiffs brought a two-phase application – where phase one of the plaintiffs’ application seeks orders requiring the defendant to answer questions (or interrogatories) – where phase two of the application seeks orders relieving the plaintiffs from their burden of proof in respect of 24 allegations – where the plaintiffs argue the defendant has abused the court’s processes by taking steps after the commencement of the proceedings to intentionally destroy or remove documentary evidence from his possession or control – where the court can grant leave to issue interrogatories pursuant to rules 229 and 230 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where delay is relevant to the court’s discretion – whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to issue interrogatories PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS ANSWERING PLEADINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where the defendant brings a cross-application to seek dispensation from the usual rules of pleading and to be relieved of any requirement to file and serve affidavits by way of evidence-in-chief – where the basis of the defendant’s cross application is his right to privilege against self-incrimination – where the defendant must show, or it must be clear, that there is a real and appreciable risk of criminal prosecution or a tendency to expose a person to penalty – whether the court should grant the defendant leave to dispense from the usual rules of pleading and to be relieved of any requirement to file and serve affidavits by way of evidence-in-chief Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 223(2)(b), r 229, r 230, r 367 Anderson v Australian Securities and Investment Commission (2013) 297 ALR 546; [2012] QCA 301, cited CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 2) [2012] VSC 149 at [18], cited Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi (2021) 273 CLR 235; [2021] HCA 22, applied Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 153 CLR 281; [1983] HCA 10, cited
COUNSEL:	DB O’Sullivan KC, with E L Robinson and A J Schriffer, for the plaintiffs M Hodge KC, with C Schneider, for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Dowd + Wilson for the plaintiffs Marque Lawyers for the defendant