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]".

The remarks were supported by an outline of recent events.

Late in 2007 "discovery" commenced. "Discovery" is the process by which the parties in the case exchange documents relevant to the case. After the defendants provided their documents to Gunns, Gunns' lawyers wrote to the defendants' lawyers on 5 March 2008 asking for further documents and information. The request came in the form of a 37-page letter. The letter said that defendants had to respond by 19 March 2008 or Gunns would take the matter to court.

The defendants' lawyers responded the same day (5/3/08)saying because of the length of the request (37 pages!) and the fact that the defendants live in three states a response would be provided by 16 April 2008.

No further correspondence occurred until 20 March 2008 when Gunns' lawyers issued a "summons". This essentially takes the matter to the Court. It is a request to the Court that the Court order defendants to provide the further documents. As the matter goes before the Court a "costs order" will also be made. In other words the Court will rule on who should pay the costs of the application. A cost order in this sort of application could be tens of thousands of dollars. The upshot is that the defendants, even if they ultimately win the case, could be financially crippled by these type of applications.

On 10 April 2008 the case was listed for 10.30am. The lawyers for Gunns (one senior barrister and at times two lawyers from Clayton Utz) were present along with Lu Geraghty (defendant#10) and her legal representatives. All these people waited in court, while other cases were heard, until 3.10pm when the case actually properly began. There was argument for just over an hour, mostly about whether one defendant should release her tax returns, until the court adjourned at 4.15pm. The case will resume on 28 April 2008 in Court 3 at 10.30am.