Hi everyone,

The case so far

I have recently received an update from the "Friends of Gunns 20". All the defendents have legal representation. Seven have been able to get representation from Herbert Greer and Randall on a pro bono basis.

There has also been movement in terms of the statement of claim following a Directions Hearing during which Judge Bongiorno of the Supreme Court of Victoria made orders relating to documents referred to in the statement of claim, the provision of further and better particulars and the postponement of the need for the defendents to lodge their defences. The plaintifs were unsucessful in getting documents referred to in the statement of claim from the plaintifs, who have now been ordered to produce the documents in seven days. The plaintifs have also been orered to add details of their claim. The date for a further hearing has been set for the 4th, 5th and 6th of July. There is a chance that all or some of the defendents may make applications for the court to strike out the statement of claim. Striking out means the court could dismiss all or part of the claim. The court could do this if the statement of claim doesn't contain a cause of action or is vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of process.

Co - ordination

There have been two part time staff members appointed to assist with the legal and administrative demands of the proceedings. The office is on the first floor of 61 Davey Street Hobart. It is not a campaign office but a legal resource for the defendents the office is also a source for information on what is going on with the case. The phone number is 0362248318. The office needs a number of pieces of office furniture, so if any Tasmanian readers or any readers who could send them can contact the administrative co-ordinator from the previously mentioned phone number.

The writ

Further details have been provided on the writ. It has been divided into nine actions. The details are as follows

The Lucaston Action Damages sought $700,000

Gunns Ltd allege that the defendants conspired to plan and engage in a campaign to disrupt logging operations at Lucaston in 2003 thus interfering with the plaintiffs trade and bisiness by unlawful means. The plaintifs allege that a number of defendants and other protestors (who apparently are not being prosecuted) staged a blockade of the site and halted access by logging contractors Defendents are also alleged to have locked themselves onto logging machinary. Interestingly enough the defendents affected by this action include The Wilderness Society and Huon Valley Environment Centre!

The Hampshire Action Damages Sought $370,000+

Gunns allege that a conspiracy by a number of defendents to interfere with their trade and bsiness by unlawful means in March 2004.  Gunns claim that a number of defendants and others entered a mill site with out permission and locked themselves onto various parts of mill machinary and created a blockade by standing on the road with banners thus preventing entry to the mill. They also allege tresspass, public nuisance and obstruction of the road. Gunns claim damages for the wages and labour costs during the action - including security costs. Gunns allege some defendants gained notoriety which enabled them to raise campaign funds and "further their careers as teachers and trainers of persons engaged in protest action"

Triabunna 2003 Action  Damages sought $190,000+

Gunns claim that some of the defendants and others (who yet again are not being prosecuted!) "conspired" to plan a campaign of interference with operations at the Triambunna Mill. In this claim Gunns allege some defendants entered the mill site without permission and locked onto various pieces of mill machinary. The allegations include entereing a prohibited area under the Marine & Safety Regulations Act, Hindering employees contracts, injury to Gunns trade and business through lost production time and curiously enough Conspiracy and damage to equipment.

Triabunna 2004 Action  Damages sought $180,000+

Gunns allege that some of the defendants conspired to plan an action to injure the plaintiff's trade and business by stopping operations of the mill site. Again they are claiming "Hindering employees contracts, injury to Gunns trade and business through lost production time"

The Styx Action

My reading of this section of the writ the only offence the defendants have comitted is to have campaigned against logging in the Styx valley. I feel that this is one of the most dangerous sections of the action.

Gunns claime that a number of defendants conspired to interfere with logging operations and contracts assoicated with the Styx 4A coupe by unlawful means. The conspiracy is stated to be a planned summer of protest in relation to the Styx4A coupe This incluided meetings in Sydney and Melbourne at wich Bob Brown and others spoke to encourage people to take action in the Styx over the summer of 2003-04, The defendents are also alleged to have encouraged people to participate in a protest camp where a series of tree platforms would be erected. Protestors are alleged to have attached the platforms to machinary which prevented logging operations from being undertaken. Gunns also claim that protestors remained on site despite Forestry Tasmania closing the road to the coupe off to public access.

Burnie Woodchip pile Action Damages sought $675,000

In this action Frank Nicklason made certain comments in 2002 about the potential health issues in relation to the Burnie woodchip pile. According to Gunns these comments amount to defamation. Nicklason called for a risk assessment of the woodchip pile. Guns claim that this implies that they "conduct their business without regard for the health of their employees or the community". This action is said to have injured Gunns' trade and business.

The Banksia Awards Action Damages Sought $340,000

Again the plaintiff's claim that the defendants "conspired to injure their trade and business by unlawful means through a vilification campaign" In this action the defendants are supposed to have put pressure on the foundation to withdraw the nomination of Gunns Ltd as a finalist for the award by their public comments as well as providing the foundation with information about Gunns Ltd. Evidently this action is the corporate equivilant of a footballer being resentful of not getting a Brownlow or a Dally M award, a actor not getting a logie or an oscar or a journalist not getting a Walklee award.

The Japanese Customers' action Damages sought $2450,000

In this action some of the defendants mounted a campaign in Japan criticising the Tasmanian woodchipping industry to paper companies who buy it's products. The defendants are alleged to have urged Japanese paper companies to require the plaintiffs to end the sourcing of woodchips from old growth native forests. Gunns also allege some defendents worked with Greenpeace in Japan  in approaching Japanese paper companies in a campaign criticising the plaintiff's loffing operations and logging practices in Tasmania. Gunns claims that it took considerable effort to respond to queries from their Japanese customers, which they claim emerged from joint campaign with Greenpeace (who incidentally are not being prosecuted!).

The Banks Action Damages sought $270,000

It appears that the only offence that defendants named in this action have comitted is to have actively campaigned against Gunns Ltd. The defendants are alleged to have undertook a an ethical share holder campaign at various companies AGMs. This campaign included tabling resolutions, distributing publicity materials and the organising public demonstrations in order to bringabout change to Gunns logging operations in Tasmania.

Conclusion

From what I have read thus far it appears that the real motive behind this action is to firstly create a precident - if you protest you will be prosecuted and will loose your house, reputiation and you livelyhood. This will create a climate of fear among environmentalists and the community at large. I also believe that this could also create a climate of impunaty among corporations undertaking activities that would affect the environment. It would also encourage other companies to take actions against individuals and organisations campaigning on other issues.

Secondly this action will cost the defendants - both individuals and organisations money and time. This may divert resources from other campaigns and attention from the activities of Gunns and other companies.

Finally if this law suit may provide the Howard Government with a case for changes to the tax deductable status of environmental organisations and even laws relating to protests and political campaigning. With a senate majority laws affecting this may become a reality following July 1.