Supreme Court orders anti-fossil fuel activist Ben Pennings to file a defence in civil damages case

Bravus has welcomed the Queensland Supreme Court’s most recent orders in its civil damages case against anti-fossil fuel activist Ben Pennings, which require him to file a defence to the company’s statement of claim after years of Mr Pennings attempting to delay the matter from going to trial.

The company has submitted amended pleadings which present a strong case against Mr Pennings who orchestrated campaigns to intimidate and harass workers and contractors to try to stop the Carmichael mine and rail Project near Clermont in central Queensland from being built.

The mine and railway are now operating and employ thousands of Queenslanders.

Bravus brought the civil legal proceedings against Mr Pennings in 2020 to enforce its rights and allow its employees and contractors to carry out legal and legitimate business activities free from that intimidation and harassment.

The statement of claim covers millions of dollars in damages and requests that the temporary injunction against Mr Pennings preventing him from: threatening Bravus’ contractors and employees; engaging in direct action* against Bravus contractors; or organising, inducing or procuring others to engage in direct action, be made permanent.

Mr Pennings has also had costs orders totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars made against him during the proceedings to date.

Bravus’ amended pleadings to the Queensland Supreme Court demonstrate that:

• Mr Pennings obtained confidential business information through direct solicitation and unauthorised disclosures;
• Mr Pennings encouraged and organised protest actions targeting Bravus and its contractors;
• Mr Pennings’ campaigns pressured suppliers and partners to sever business ties with Bravus;
• Mr Pennings has stated intentions to continue anti-Bravus campaigns;
• Bravus has ongoing business relationships at risk due to continued threats and activism;
• The breach of confidence claim is well-supported by contractual confidentiality obligations imposed on employees and contractors;
• The inducing breach of contract claim is strengthened by Mr Pennings’ explicit calls for insiders to leak information;
• The intimidation claim is backed by direct threats and coordinated pressure campaigns against Bravus’ business partners. The Court has already granted injunctive relief, suggesting a prima facie case of wrongdoing; and
• The injunction correlated with a decrease in protest actions, reinforcing the link between Mr Pennings’ conduct and harm suffered.

*I.e. office sit-ins, locking onto equipment and infrastructure, trespass.

ENDS

Download PDF