The Victorian Supreme Court has, for the third time, struck out a statement of claim by Gunns Ltd against 20 people and groups involved in the long-running Tasmanian forestry dispute.
When the Court struck out Gunns’ claim the second time, in July 2005, it told the firm’s lawyers that
they must submit a third, and “radically altered”, version of its claim document if the case was to go ahead.
Over a year later, the third and presumably “radically altered” claim still cannot pass muster in court.
It is useless and probably legally unsafe to speculate in this forum on Gunns’ agenda or strategy in this case, but it is striking that its lawyers have repeatedly been unable to formulate the firm’s claim in terms which satisfy the procedural requirements of the court, despite being previously advised by Justice Bongiorno of what was wrong with previous claims and what they needed to do to satisfy those requirements. It can probably be safely said that formulating the claims in more specific and procedurally satisfactory terms would expedite what has become a very protracted, stressful and costly process for all concerned.
How many chances do they get? Surely there must come a point where the whole thing is thrown out because they can’t get their statement of claim together.
“a very protracted, stressful and costly process”
Maybe that is their intention. Keep the opposition busy elsewhere.
Gunn’s were firng blanks?
I think Paul’s point is that the possiblity cannot be excluded that Gunns’s legal team may be “running dead” in order to maximise the stress on the defendants.
More specifically, if I understand Paul’s language, the possibility cannot be excluded that these pleading are designed to be thrown out of court.
What remedies exist? How many shots does the prosecution get? Is there a time limit on successful claims?
Gunns are either:
A. Using the court to harrass these people with no intention of the case ever getting to a hearing OR
B. Making the biggest corporate mistake since McDonalds launched the McLibel case and made martyrs and heroes of two activists who would otherwise have faded into obscurity.
That’s my two cents worth, for what its worth.
Cheers..
an excellent result – what a man is Bob Brown and his party – actually standing for something. Question: are any of the Gunns 20, ALP drones?
What is the story on costs? Surely Gunns can’t get away with things on that front.
joe2,
they have already had costs awarded against them for first two attempts. Costs determination for 3rd attempt will be decided 9th Oct.
Thanks Pollytickedoff. Hope they get a bucketload. Maybe Bracksie should be looking at ‘vexatious litigant’ law applying to companies, as well. A good way of getting greens on side before election.
Good. That Gunn’s mob are modern day Robber Barons. Having stitched up crown forestry lands for private benefit (the public actually makes a loss on deal), they then have the hubris to pretend they’re some sort of legitimate ‘private’ entity with right to suppress public criticism. Stuff em. You live on the public tit – you cop the public crit.
Id boot em out on their arse 10 seconds after being elected Premier. I’d then pass unprecedented legislation voiding their contract ab initio, denying them all rights of recourse, and seizing their ill-gotten assets.
Let’s be frank: Gunn’s is an essentially criminal organsation which provides stuff all jobs, buggers the environment, corrupts the government, and lazily drains the non-renewable public resources of the Tasmanian people.
Sue that, Gunn’s.
Who are their shareholders? They should be screaming blue murder at this gross mismanagement by now.
Derider derider ,it looks like those dangerous ‘mums and dads’ own it, albeit indirectly. Many would be investing through Super funds( A.R.F.,Unisuper,State Super-nsw). Also, investment funds—- Perpetual Trustees, A.M.P., Deutsche Bank, and Concord. Commonwealth Bank may well be still in there, as well.
I wonder if people would give a stuff if they knew.
Thank’s for the tip-off Joe2.
I’m in at least three of those you mentioned.
And now I’m very angry.
Everyone:
I glad I am not a shareholder in a firm that thinks vanity is far more important than long-term profitability.
Anyone capable of running something more complex than a garage-sale or a chook-raffle would have had the firm’s critics on board ages ago – even to the extent of paying them retainers to keep up their very valuable criticism. Has intelligent management been declared illegal in Australia or something?
Exactly, Mr Bell. Gunns have been getting quite a few mentions in dispatches of late as a viable takeover opportunity – one would hope that this would then see someone of some intelligence placed on the board. & it doesn’t have to be critics either. Their aggressive actions have caused so much community angst in the NE of Tas, that even local councils are now looking at litigation against Gunns for environmental & infrastructure damage, a course of action that in the past has been about as likely as John Howard lying straight in bed at night.
& Katz – don’t just get angry – change your super fund to one who makes ethical investment choices. There’s a Canberra based mob who, with stringent criteria for portfolio selection, still managed to have the highest return to members on managed funds. Funny isn’t it? Behave ethically & you make more money. Anyone from Gunns listening?
The court saga is shaping up as the new McLibel case where even if the company were to win, it would lose. More onthis at:
http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/lawyers_gunns_and_money_the_new_mclibel.php