A team at Herbert Geer initially acted on behalf of seven defendants on instructions from the Public Interest Law Clearing House in 2004, in relation to the Gunns Ltd v Marr & Ors proceeding, a matter with significant public profile.
The proceeding was commenced in December 2004 by Gunns against 20 defendants, alleging a number of different torts and seeking damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages and injunctions, arising out of the conduct of the defendants in opposition to certain business activities of Gunns in the wood chip and associated industries.
The first articulation of the Statement of Claim was 216 pages, comprising 529 paragraphs. After much correspondence between the parties, the plaintiffs agreed to amend their Statement of Claim. The new Statement of Claim was 360 pages. The strike out application proceeded for four days. The Statement of Claim was dismissed.
The next version of the Statement of Claim was again struck out and the plaintiffs were ordered to make a further application to amend the Statement of Claim rather than just being given leave to amend the Statement of Claim.
The plaintiffs finally obtained leave to proceed with the claim (the Statement of Claim having been significantly changed from the earlier drafts) in April 2007, some three years after commencing the proceeding.
In January 2009, a subsidiary of Gunns also issued Supreme Court proceedings against our clients. In June 2009, His Honour Justice Forrest was appointed to have the running of the matter. That of course led to much mirth amongst the parties.
On 10 August 2009, the matter was set down for hearing on 2 February with an estimated duration of 20 days.
On 27 November 2009, two of our clients gave limited undertakings that expire on 31 December 2012. No costs for damages were paid. The other Herbert Geer defendants remained in the proceeding.
On 28 January 2010, the matter as against all the defendants settled. The settlement provided for Gunns to pay the remaining defendants $155,000 with no undertakings being given by the defendants.
Having worked pro bono on this matter for six years, Herbert Geer was delighted by this outcome.