On 27 February 2007 in the Supreme Court of Victoria- Melbourne, Justice Bongiorno heard Gunns' application to continue their claim against 13 individuals and 2 organisation (see transcript attached). The Judge will present his decision at a time and date to be announced.

The Judge heard from barristers Phillip Bornstein, Mark Dreyfus QC for the defendants and Paul Santamaria for Gunns.

The hearing dealt with the application by Gunns made last year to serve new statements of claim. The application also concerned the discontinuing of the case against Helen Gee, Senator Bob Brown, Peter Pullinger and Peg Putt. This, however, was not discussed because at the previous directions hearing (9 Feb 07) the Judge ordered these defendants and Gunns to make written submissions about this issue. Doctors for Native Forests are formally out of the case as of the
previous directions hearing.

The arguments concerned two issues predominantly. Firstly, whether the statement of claim was in a form that allowed the defendants to properly respond to it. This is similar to the argument (put by defendants) that resulted in the previous claims being struck out. Secondly, whether having all five actions in one claim was in accordance with the court rules. This argument, run by Mark Dreyfus QC, is basically that it isn’t fair or convenient for all the defendants named in RAM 4 to be in the one statement of claim. RAM 4 is the title of the bigger of the two proposed statements of claim at this time. Mr Dreyfus used Brian Dimmick and Neal Funnell as examples because they are named in only one of the five actions in RAM 4. The other statement of claim, entitled RAM 3, is confined to the case against Dr Frank Nicklason for comments he allegedly made in relation to possible health risks of the woodchip pile in Burnie.

Gunns response to the first point was basically that the statement of claim is clear enough. As to the second point Gunns said because of the way the defendants are represented it wouldn’t be unfair and secondly the Judge didn’t have
to decide this issue now. They argued that the Judge should allow RAM 4 to be served on defendants and the Court can order separate trials at a later date if that was ultimately considered necessary.