Adani ‘vindicated’ after Court of Appeal overturns ruling in NQXT dispute with port users

Mining giant Adani has been “vindicated” after a court overturned a ruling that it had engaged in “unconscionable conduct” as part of a contractual dispute involving its port operations at Abbot Point.

Mining giant Adani has been “vindicated” after a court overturned a ruling that it had engaged in “unconscionable conduct” as part of a contractual dispute involving its port operations at Abbot Point.

The company’s North Queensland Export Terminal (NQXT), formerly known as the Adani Abbot Point Terminal, was also set to reclaim hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement costs and owed port handling charges in light of the unanimous Court of Appeal decision.

NQXT took four of its eight port users to court in 2017 in relation to non-payment handling fees.

In a legal twist, the four users — Lake Vermont Resources, QCoal, Byerwen Coal and Sonoma Mine — countersued, alleging unconscionable conduct over increased port charges.

The Supreme Court in August 2020 ordered Adani pay over $100 million to the four port users after Justice Jean Dalton found the miner had been exploitative and unfair.

But the appeal court, in a unanimous decision handed down today, overturned the most significant sections of the ruling in a decision Adani Australia boss Lucas Dow described as vindication.

He said Adani expected to recoup money it had paid out as part of the settlement among other costs.

A spokeswoman for NQXT said the company was particularly pleased that the court has unanimously found it had not engaged in unconscionable conduct.

“We are also pleased that the decision on the 2018 and 2019 terminal handling charges is now resolved in our favour,” she said.

Justice Philip McMurdo, in the Court of Appeal judgment, ruled the conduct by NQXT could not be characterised as being so far outside societal norms of acceptable commercial “behaviour as to warrant condemnation as conduct that is offensive to conscience”.

“The trial judge was in error in finding that the appellant’s conduct was unconscionable, and the respondents should not have been given any relief upon this ground,” he said.