Gladstone Ports Corp lawyers delayed disclosure delivery in fishers class action could cost $2m

A class action case involving more than 150 fishermen and associated business owners suing the government-owned Gladstone Ports Corporation has had cataclysmic event. Read what it means for the case here.

A class action case involving more than 150 fishermen and associated business owners suing government-owned Gladstone Ports Corporation has had a cataclysmic event where a colossal disclosure by the ports corporation was revealed months behind a deadline.

More than 150 people (fishers) in Queensland and NSW — from Bowen to Sydney including Keppel Bay and Stanage Bay ­operators — are seeking up to $150m in damages.

They claim dredging works carried out by GPC in 2010-11 ­resulted in negative water quality, poor fish health and decreased fish numbers, which affected businesses along the east coast.

During an update to the Supreme Court in Rockhampton on April 8, 2022, – the month an 11-week trial had been originally set to start after being pushed back twice in the past – the court heard neither party would be ready for trial by the most recent start date of September 2022.

Lachlan Armstrong QC, representing the fishers and associated businesses, told the court the delays had occurred due to a “somewhat cataclysmic event” in that the lawyers for Gladstone Ports Corp didn’t meet the timeline for the disclosure of evidence.

He said issues with GPC’s late disclosure were raised in September 2021.

Gladstone Fish Market owner Ted Whittingham in the cream jacket and pants), Urangan Fisheries owner Nick Schulz with Law Essentials principle Chris Thompson and Clyde and Co partner Maurice Thompson with plaintiffs in the class action against Gladstone Ports Corporation.

Mr Armstrong said some of the disclosure documents were revealed in September.

“(This) has completely thrown out the timetable in the proceedings,” he said.

“It has required the plaintiffs to revise their document review processes and we are already in the process of revisiting various expert reports that were prepared prior to September and we expect it will also potentially require us to revisit the lay evidence we had obtained and filed in respect to two of the former employees of GPC.”

Mr Armstrong said there were still some disclosures by GPC to occur, which was “a matter of concern”.

He said there were “some 39,000 documents” in a further disclosure so far.

Mr Armstrong said mediation between the parties took place in March 2022 having been disrupted by the floods in Brisbane in February, among other things.

“That mediation did not result in a resolution,” he said.

“We are now embarking on the very costly exercise of reviewing the further disclosure that we have received from GPC.

“There is now zero prospect of this matter being ready for trial in September.”

Mr Armstrong said he had been working on class action cases for a “very long time”.

“I’m not aware of any occasion where there has been such a colossal disclosure debacle as has arisen in the present case,” he said.

“It’s an extraordinary situation.

“One would have imagined that it might attract unusual orders from a court, especially in relation to costs.”

Mr Armstrong added the plaintiffs were not sure how to approach the problem that had arisen so they included the orders they requested of the court in relation to costs for the late disclosures.

“The golden rule in class action cases is that sunlight is a disinfectant and when you have a procedural issue where you don’t know how to deal with it, you find a way to bring it to the attention of the judge with your best suggestions in how it might be dealt with and seek the court’s guidance.”

GPC’s lawyer Damien Clothier QC said the vast bulk of the disclosure occurred by December 2021 and it was not yet necessary for the court to make orders in relation to the costs of the delayed disclosure.

He added GPC sought a case management court date in August, however Mr Armstrong argued that was not enough time for the plaintiffs to carry out the work they needed to do for the next step in the case.

“It’s now effectively four months … three months away,” Mr Armstrong said.

“It’s not a long time.

“There’s going to be a lot of work done between now and then.”

He said the processing of the disclosure with the time now available would still require “a very significant devotion of resources”.

The trial date was vacated with no new dates set down.

Chris Thompson of Law Essentials, who represented the first plaintiffs in the case and remains part of the plaintiff team, said the additional costs could be in the order of $2 million.

He said the costs matters would be raised with the court again at the next case management conference in August.

Originally published as Gladstone Ports Corp lawyers delayed disclosure delivery in fishers class action could cost $2m