By Peter Milne
Woodside wants to compel three Disrupt Burrup Hub protestors charged over a 2023 smoke bomb incident at its headquarters to reveal details of other people involved in the stunt as it chases compensation for the cost of evacuating the building.
At a case management hearing on Monday, Woodside will seek Supreme Court orders for Kristen Morrissey, who allegedly let off the smoke bomb in June 2023, and two others charged by WA police over the incident, to hand over any information they have about others involved. They would later be required to be examined in court about their identity.
Disrupt Burrup Hub protesters Kristen Morrissey and Joana Partyka are two of the three summonsed to appear in court on Monday.Credit: Jesinta Burton
A month after about 1500 Woodside workers had to leave their 29-storey office, lawyers for the company wrote to Morrissey and another Disrupt Burrup Hub member Joana Partyka saying the smoke bomb was intended to “shut down business as usual for Woodside”. They threatened to sue both women for financial losses.
The smoke bomb was a part of an escalating campaign by Disrupt Burrup Hub in opposition of Woodside’s under-construction $18 billion Scarborough gas project and its proposed development of the Browse gas fields.
The group warn both projects would produce substantial climate-warming emissions and expanded gas plants on the Pilabra coast’s Burrup Hub will impact millions of pieces of World Heritage-nominated rock art located nearby.
Emil Davey, the third protestor summoned by Woodside who was fined in 2023 for running onto the field during an AFL game at Optus Stadium, said he does not intend to disclose any documents to Woodside.
“It’s certainly a big weight on my shoulders, the fact that I’m 22 and being taken to the Supreme Court by a multi-billion dollar company,” he said.
“What are they trying to get out of me apart from trying to sedate the climate movement in WA to keep doing what they want to do?”
Davey’s legal support was being led by the Environmental Defenders Office at no cost to him, which he said made him feel more confident about his situation.
The EDO has been mired in controversy after a Federal Court judge levelled a blistering assessment at the community law firm for producing confected evidence and coaching witnesses in a failed attempt to stop Santos’s $5.8 billion Barossa gas project near the Tiwi Islands.
Woodside’s move was likened to actions launched in 2004 by Tasmanian forestry company Gunns, which was planning to build a large pulp mill against 20 individuals and groups that campaigned or took direct action against its logging.
Long-time environmental campaigner Adam Burling was one of those targeted by Gunns for six years before the logger dropped the case days before trial.
“It appears that Woodside are using a classic corporate technique of going after people who are campaigning for the environment,” he said.
Burling said a ruthless part of the process was that in civil cases defendants could not recoup all their costs, even if the action against them failed.
The cases attracted national attention, and a phalanx of senior lawyers were involved in the defence, including current federal Attorney General Mark Dreyfus.
A Woodside spokeswoman said it did not comment on matters before the court. At the time of the incident, Woodside said it respected people’s right to protest safely and legally, but it was unacceptable for protests to put the safety of its employees at risk.
Greenpeace legal counsel Brooke Dellavedova said amidst a climate emergency huge fossil fuel companies were taking actions against individuals and advocacy organisations to intimidate and stifle free speech and peaceful protest.
“The leveraging of a gross power imbalance to silence criticism has no place in a democracy,” she said.
Woodside’s quest for compensation for the evacuation of its building is one of many legal battles between Australia’s largest oil and gas company and environmental groups opposed to fossil fuels.
Disrupt Burrup Hub protestor Emil Davey was ...Credit: Miles Tweedie Photography
Woodside chief executive Med O’Neill obtained violence restraining orders against four Disrupt Burrup Hub members shortly after they protested outside her Perth home last year. The orders, most often used by women subject to or threatened by domestic violence, included a ban on them referring to O’Neill “by any electronic means.” That gag was later removed, and the orders are under appeal.
On the other side of the climate divide, the Australian Conservation Foundation wants the Federal Court to stop Woodside’s Scarborough gas project until the impact of its emissions on the Great Barrier Reef can be assessed. The action that relies on the reef’s classification as a matter of national environmental significance under Commonwealth law will be heard in September.
In December, Greenpeace filed a lawsuit claiming Woodside has misrepresented its climate plans, which the company dismissed as without merit. In the same month, Woodside received regulatory approval to conduct seismic testing for its Scarborough project after losing an action based on Indigenous cultural heritage concerns earlier.