Gunns Law Suit Against The Wilderness Society & Others

The Gunns 20 and supporters outside Melbourne Supreme Court, 2005. Photo: Peter Casamento

In December 2004, forestry giant Gunns Ltd sued The Wilderness Society, five of its staff, and 14 other conservation groups and individuals (including Green Members of Parliament, Bob Brown and Peg Putt) in relation to the campaign to protect Tasmania's forests. This is the so-called Gunns 20 case.

Somewhat bizarrely, the case about protests over Tasmania’s forests was brought in the Victorian Supreme Court where Gunns claimed some $6.3m damages alleging that the defendants had interfered with the company’s trade and business and contractual relations, and that the conservationists had conspired to injure Gunns by illegal means.

There were nine discreet actions in the claim which include media statements, what Gunns claim was unlawful lobbying of shareholders, customers and governments, and protest actions in the forests and at woodchip mills. And overlaying all these actions has been the notion of a broad campaign (or conspiracy) against Gunns which makes all defendants liable for all actions - even where no direct involvement in particular actions was alleged.

The “Gunns20” Defendants

1.  The Wilderness Society National Campaign Director, Alec Marr
2.  The Wilderness Society Tasmania Campaign Coordinator, Geoff Law
3.  The Wilderness Society CEO, Russell Hanson *
4.  The Wilderness Society former Corporate Campaigner, Leanne Minshull
5.  The Wilderness Society Audio-Visual Producer, and award winning film maker, Heidi Douglas
6.  The Wilderness Society Inc.
7.  Activist and Huon Valley resident, Adam Burling
8.  Activist and journalism student, Louise Morris
9.  Artist and musician, Simon Brown
10.  Senator Bob Brown *
11.  Greens Tasmanian MP, Peg Putt *
12.  Long time environmentalist and author, Helen Gee *
13.  Activist Ben Morrow
14.  Lucaston grandmother, Lou Geraghty
15. Sydney law student, Neil Funnell
16.  Independent film maker, Brian Dimmick
17.  Huon Valley Environment Centre
18.  Burnie Dentist, Peter Pullinger *
19.  Hobart physician, Frank Nicklason
20.  Doctors for Native Forests Inc. *

* indicates defendants no longer in the case.

In July 2005, an amended statement of claim was lodged but the claims were struck out by Justice Bongiorno, and a third version of the statement of claim was lodged in August 2005. The second and third versions claimed a further $500,000 for the alleged conspiracy/campaign against Gunns, but the third version was struck out in August 2006.

In November 2006 Gunns lodged the 4th version of their claims, dropping 4 causes of actions including all the claims over the "corporate campaign" and discontinuing against 5 defendants. This was later amended and the claim against Frank Nicklason brought as a separate case so that there are now 2 cases - one over 5 disparate forest protests and a separate case over 1 defamation claim. Defences were filed in May 2007, and in August 2007 the case was discontinued against Russell Hanson and later against Simon Brown.

Midway through the third year of the case arguments continue over discovery of documents – that is, the listing and production by the parties of all documents relevant to the case. It is time-consuming and leads to the waste of much paper.

For a full chronology and court documents go to the Friends of Forests and Free Speech website.

The case was launched at a time when the Tasmanian forest issue was the centre of major political controversy. Conservationists had long protested the logging and woodchipping of old growth forests, the burning and 1080 poison which were part of standard forestry practice, and the consequences of these actions for the forests and wildlife of Tasmania.

The campaign stepped up in mid 2004 with large rallies and public meetings across the country on World Environment Day. The widespread community concern led to Tasmania’s forests becoming a major issue in a Federal Election in October 2004 where both sides of politics committed to protect the forests (albeit to different degrees). When the case was launched, the arguments over the details of the government’s forest package had not been resolved. Just days after the writ was issued, Gunns announced a controversial proposal to build a major pulp mill in the north of Tasmania.

The implications of this case for free speech and the community's ability to protect Tasmania's forests are set out in full in The Wilderness Society report Gunning for Change: The Need for Public Participation Law Reform.

Copies of Gunns statement of claims, transcripts of court hearings and more information on the defendants can be found at www.gunns20.org - the website of The Friends of Forests and Free Speech who are supporting of the defendants.