We would like to tell you about some of our current pro bono work.

GUNNS

We act on behalf of 7 of the 20 defendants in Supreme Court proceedings instituted by Gunns Limited and others (the Plaintiffs). Gunns is a public company engaged in the timber industry in Tasmania. It is involved in the processing of timber including wood chips and export of timber to various countries.

In December 2004, the plaintiffs filed proceedings against 17 individuals, together with the Wilderness Society, the Huon Valley Environment Centre and Doctors For Native Forests. The claim relates to various protest actions taken by those defendants. The current Statement of Claim is 226 pages containing 714 paragraphs. There are also about 600 pages of Further and Better Particulars.

The plaintiffs make a number of claims essentially based on 10 separate actions. The plaintiffs claims include allegations of conspiracy, criminal acts, tortious acts, interference with contracts and so forth. The plaintiffs claim damages together with aggravated and exemplary damages and injunctions including interlocutory injunctions restraining the defendants from certain conduct. The action has been the subject of significant media publicity. The allegation has been made that this proceeding is an example of SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) litigation. It has led to calls for legislation prohibiting corporations from bringing that sort of litigation.

In relation to the particular proceeding the defendants succeeded in an application to strike-out the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim in August 2005, and again in August 2006. ([2006] VSC 329). In his Judgment of 28 August 2006,

His Honour Justice Bongiorno noted that “it is fundamental to the proper conduct of civil litigation that a defendant be apprised of the case he/she or it has to meet with precision and with such degree of specificity and clarity as will enable a case to be prepared on the defendants behalf … a fundamental problem with this litigation which has been evidenced since the proceeding commenced, is that too much has been sought to be alleged against too many defendants in the one proceeding. This has led to a number of apparently insoluble problems, the first of which is that of embarrassment. At least if those problems are soluble, the plaintiffs to this proceeding have not solved them … there are other obstacles in the way of justice posed by litigation such as this. They derive from the sheer magnitude of the case and its effect on interlocutory processes and, of course, the trial itself”.

The third version of the Gunns Statement of Claim was struck out and the proceeding was stayed pending an application by the plaintiffs. Any such application by the plaintiffs was to be made by 19 October 2006.

At the time of writing no such application has been made.

ANIMAL LIBERATION

On 19 November 2003, Ralph Hahnheuser, a member and public officer of Animal Liberation (SA) Inc entered into some feedlots in Portland placing ham in the feedlots and ham and water into two feeding troughs. He did so on the basis that the sheep in the paddock might be loaded onto ships and subjected to live sheep transport.

He hoped that by placing ham and water in the paddock and feed troughs, the sheep might be spared the cruelty and suffering consequent upon live transport by ship to the Middle East and also to increase the public awareness and education regarding the suffering of animals when subjected to live transport by ship.

As a result of that conduct, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry issued a direction directing that no export permit be issued in relation to the proposed export of live sheep from Portland.  As a consequence two parties (one of whom had its’ export licence suspended earlier in 2003) instituted proceedings in the Federal Court seeking various declaration regarding the conduct of Ralph Hahnheuser and Animal Liberation (SA) Inc, injunctions and damages.

Interlocutory steps in the proceeding including the filing of pleadings, summaries of evidence and the like have been completed. We are currently awaiting a trial date.


MIGRATION APPEAL

Our clients, were citizens of Sri Lanka who sought asylum in France as refugees and were granted refugee status in that country.They later arrived in Australia in 1994 and applied for protection visas on the grounds that they were political refugees from France and Sri Lanka, to whom Australia had protection obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951).

Their initial application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") and the decision of the delegate was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. In the 10 or so years following the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision, the Appellants appealed directly to the Minister under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 imploring him to use his discretion to allow them to remain in the country, joined class actions in the High Court, and had the merits of their case heard by two separate Judges in the Federal Court. The Appellants' various appeals, in each instance, were dismissed.

Finally, the Appellants sought to plead their case before the Full Court of the Federal Court. Herbert Geer's brief was to assist in the Appeal process. The aim was to successfully appeal the decision of the the single Judge sitting in the Federal Court on the grounds of judicial error. It was hoped that a successful appeal would see the Appellants' come before the Refugee Review Tribunal for a further determination of their application for refugee visas.

In the days leading up to the hearing of the appeal, the Minister conveyed her intention to grant the Appellants permanent residency in Australia and bring an end to the entire legal process. The Appellants' are now awaiting their residency papers.