On December 14, 2004, 20 environmental activists, organisations and concerned citizens were issued a 216 page writ by the Tasmanian logging company Gunns Ltd. The woodchipping giant is suing for a combined AU$6.9 million for actions it claims has damaged their business and reputation. This website is in support of the defendants in this writ.

Court Hearing – Gunns demands details of 79 conservationists and reveals Triabunna 2004 action has settled. 16 July 2008

The Gunns20 case returned to court today for argument as to whether The Wilderness Society (TWS) should be ordered to release more documents. The hearing lasted all day and the presiding Master has reserved his decision (meaning he will hand it down at a later date). In the course of the hearing Gunns’ barrister, Ian Waller SC, revealed that a section of the case, which concerns allegations of protest activity in 2004 at the Triabunna woodchip mill and wharf, had been settled. No details of the terms of the settlement were revealed.

Court hears that cost of defending the case exceeds the claim. 2 June 2008

On 2 June 2008 the Supreme Court of Victoria heard another application brought by Gunns Ltd. This application was for “discovery” and production of further documents from The Wilderness Society.

Gunns persist with the defamation action against Dr Frank Nicklason. 29 May 2008

Gunns defamation case against leading Hobart physician Dr Frank Nicklason was before the Victorian Supreme Court again on 29 May 2008. Dr Nicklason was one of the Gunns20 previously accused of being part of a conspiracy against Gunns.

Gunns fails in application for further court orders. 28 April 2008

Master Evans of the Victorian Supreme Court today refused Gunns' application for further orders compelling defendants to provide further documents. This is part of the "discovery" process which commenced in October last year.

Gunns20 back in court. 10 April 2008

The Gunns case was back before the court today following an application by Gunns in late March 2008. Gunns20 barrister, Michael Gronow, said in court "this application is oppressive and a complete waste of time and should not have been brought". He commented that the way in which the case was being run "reflects no credit on the plaintiff [Gunns] or their lawyers [Clayton Utz]".

Gunns20 win Free Speech Victoria's Voltaire Award

On Friday November 30, Senator Bob Brown attended the Free Speech Victoria Awards night to receive the "The Voltaire Award" on behalf of the Gunns 20. The award presented at a packed dinner held at th

Gunns case in court again. 16 November 2007

On 16 November 2007 Simon Brown (defendant#9) formally exited the case. This followed his acceptance of an offer from Gunns along the same lines as accepted by Russell Hanson (defendant#3) in September 2007. Simon Brown issued a brief statement saying:

Gunns continue case against Hobart doctor. 1 October 2007

Gunns have served another statement of claim on Dr Nicklason after the Court struck out the previous one on 17 September 2007. This is the fourth statement of claim in the Gunns 20 case to be struck out.

Gunns' defamation case against Dr Nicklason struck out. 17 September 2007

Master Evans of the Victorian Supreme Court today struck out Gunns’ statement of claim. This is the fourth statement of claim in the Gunns 20 case to be struck out.

The statement of claim sought damages from Hobart doctor, Dr Frank Nicklason for alleged comments he made in 2002 in relation to potential health risks from woodchip piles in Burnie, Tasmania. Dr Nicklason will now wait and see if Gunns file a new statement of claim. The court has given Gunns 14 days to file another statement of claim. Go to "Media Releases" and "Media Articles" on this site for more.

Dr Nicklason defamation case in court. 17 Sep 07

Gunns have applied to strike out part of Dr Nicklason’s defence. The application will be heard by Master Evans at 10.30am on Monday, 17 September 2007 in the Victorian Supreme Court. The single paragraph in question states that even if the comments allegedly made are defamatory, that they were true and published for the public benefit and/or were fair comment.