The four-year legal saga between environmental activist Ben Pennings and Adani took a dramatic turn as the Queensland Supreme Court rejected key claims against Pennings, citing lack of evidence and labeling some allegations “embarrassing.” At the heart of the case lies the contentious Carmichael coal mine, a project fraught with environmental and ethical concerns.
BY PC Bureau
The Queensland Supreme Court has dismissed critical portions of a lawsuit filed by the Adani Group against environmental activist Ben Pennings, with Justice Susan Brown describing parts of the company’s claims as “confused and embarrassing.” This judgment represents a pivotal moment in the legal battle, which began in 2020, and has brought global attention to the clash between environmental activism and corporate interests.
Justice Susan Brown struck out key allegations that Pennings’ activism had directly caused companies Greyhound and Downer to withdraw from contracts associated with Adani’s Carmichael coal mine. The court found that Adani failed to establish a clear causal link between Pennings’ actions and the companies’ decisions. Brown went further, labeling one claim as “embarrassing” and another as “inconsistent with the evidence.”
Speaking outside the courtroom, Pennings expressed relief over the outcome. “I’m extraordinarily relieved that after four and a half years, the judge has thrown out a number of allegations that we’ve always argued were spurious and anti-democratic,” he said. Highlighting the David-and-Goliath nature of the case, Pennings remarked, “The person ultimately taking this against me is worth $100 billion. I haven’t got that—I’ve got very little.”
While the ruling provides Pennings with a partial victory, he acknowledged that the legal fight is far from over. Adani has until February 2025 to refile its claims, keeping the legal battle alive.
Adani Mining’s Response
Adani Mining responded to the ruling by emphasizing that the court’s injunction against Pennings remains in effect. In a statement, the company said: “We brought these civil proceedings against Mr. Pennings in 2020 to enforce our rights and allow employees and contractors of our Carmichael mine to carry out legal and legitimate business activities free from intimidation and harassment.”
The company underscored that Pennings has been largely unsuccessful in earlier stages of the litigation and expressed confidence that the case will proceed to trial in 2025. Adani reiterated its commitment to protecting its operations from what it perceives as unlawful interference.
Background of the Case
The dispute dates back to 2020 when Adani accused Pennings of orchestrating campaigns to disrupt operations at the controversial Carmichael coal mine. Adani alleged that Pennings engaged in actions aimed at intimidating suppliers and contractors, discouraging them from working with the company.
Adding to the controversy, Adani hired private investigators to monitor Pennings and his family, a move criticized by environmental groups as overly aggressive. The company also sought a court order to conduct an unannounced search of Pennings’ home to recover allegedly confidential information. This aspect of the case was dropped in 2023, following significant backlash.
Environmental advocates have framed the legal action as an attack on legitimate activism. The Carmichael coal mine, a project that has long been opposed by environmentalists, is cited as a major contributor to global carbon emissions and a threat to sensitive ecological areas, including the Great Barrier Reef. Pennings and his supporters argue that the lawsuit is a tactic to silence dissent and discourage public opposition to Adani’s operations.
Next Steps
While Justice Brown dismissed significant portions of the case, she rejected arguments that Adani’s actions constituted an abuse of legal process. The company has been granted permission to submit a revised statement of claim by February 2025, leaving the door open for further legal action.
Both parties now face a protracted legal battle, with a trial likely to take place in 2025. The case continues to be a flashpoint in the broader debate over corporate accountability, environmental protection, and the boundaries of lawful activism.
This ruling underscores the challenges faced by activists in confronting powerful corporations while navigating complex legal landscapes. At the same time, it highlights the increasing scrutiny of corporate practices in the face of environmental and societal concerns.
