PILCH Matters February 2010
On 13 December 2004, Gunns Limited, a Tasmanian saw miller and hardware retailer, lodged a writ in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking injunctions and damages of $6.36 million against twenty Tasmanian environmentalists and groups – the so-called “Gunns 20”. In late January 2010, days before a lengthy trial was set to proceed, Gunns ended over five years of legal wrangling by settling with the four remaining defendants on the basis that it would withdraw its claim for damages and pay the defendants $155,088 in compensation and legal costs.
PILCH secured pro bono representation for eight of the Gunns defendants. Law firms Herbert Geer and Lander & Rogers accepted referrals from PILCH in early 2005, and remained committed to the matter until last week’s final settlement. In addition, a large number of barristers, including Mark Dreyfus QC, Jennifer Batrouney SC, Fiona McLeod SC, Campbell Thomson, Richard Attiwill, Michael Gronow, Sharon Moore, Catherine Symons and Eliza Holt, provided pro bono advice and representation during the long and tortuous history of the matter. PILCH applauds the tireless pro bono efforts of all of those involved in the defence of the Gunns 20, including the firms and barristers who were approached by the defendants directly or through services other than PILCH.
Prosecuting five years of Supreme Court litigation is an enormous commitment for a large corporation; funding the defence of such a claim is simply out of the question for an individual or a small not-for-profit. Without the pro bono efforts outlined above, the defendants would not have been able to adequately defend themselves against the claims brought by Gunns, which involved complex legal argument far beyond the scope of what a self-represented litigant could have been expected to comprehend.
Although this matter was an example of what can be achieved when determined defendants have access to generous pro bono assistance, it is worth considering the broader issues raised by the circumstances and conduct of the litigation.
It is important to remember that very few people or organisations are willing and able to endure the imposition of a lengthy court proceeding. Indeed, the majority of individuals and small community groups faced with such a daunting prospect – even with pro bono assistance available – would see an early settlement as the only realistic option. Further, actually defending a case like the Gunns 20 matter consumes an inordinate amount of scarce pro bono resources.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) legislation is an important measure to protect the right of private citizens and small community organisations to participate in public debate and ensure that pro bono resources are not expended in the defence of claims initiated only for the purpose of stifling public debate. PILCH and other organisations, including the Gunns 20 defendants, continue to lobby both federal and state governments for the introduction of such legislation.