Issue 108: Woodside's Secret Meeting
"He was never wrong," attributed to UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, speaking of Lee Kuan Yew, first prime minister and dictator of Singapore - 1998.
About two weeks ago something happened that might be considered good news—though it hadn't started out that way. Australian petroleum giant Woodside's discovery application against three activists in a civil action was thrown out by the WA Supreme Court.
It was the latest salvo in a long-running skirmish between Woodside and the activist group, Disrupt Burrup Hub. In June 2023, the activists had been involved in a protest that made national news after they forced the evacuation of the lobby in the company's Perth headquarters using stench gas often used within the mining industry to signal an industrial accident. Woodside quickly brought its civil claim but pumped the brakes when criminal charges were brought. Fast forward to earlier this year and, as I reported for Deepcut, criminal proceedings have now concluded but the company has sought to pick up where it left off with its civil claim.
The activists themselves and legal observers who weren't involved in the matter generally regarded the proceedings as a SLAPP-suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). These describe legal proceedings by large corporates that are not necessarily designed to be successful, but attempt to knock out activists by putting them under pressure, taking up their time and burning through their resources. All of these efforts leverage the asymmetry in power and resources to help the company running the legal effort gather intelligence on people they consider 'opponents', to tie up their resources, or bankrupt them. One of the more high profile of these cases in recent times was Indian coal mining giant Adani's pursuit of environmental activist Ben Pennings. Adani failed, even though it took longer than it should have for that process to reach its end.
These tactics are also used to send a message. A SLAPP-suit immediately reframed how the story plays out in the public narrative, with the focus shifting away from any action a company might have taken—like build a dirty great big coal mine—onto the activist themselves. Suddenly the question is not about the role in contributing to climate change or how to clean-up an industrial wasteland, it's about the rightness or wrongness of the activist's actions. Because the David-and-Goliath framing is intuitive, the activists themselves will generally be the first to say how stressed, sad and broke they are. Companies engaged in these tactics love this. They want tears. They want everyone else to hear how much their life sucks because this helps deter others. It tends to be forgotten that Goliath killed hundreds before he met his end and every single one of those dead guys imagined themselves a David.
So it was with some interest that Woodside's discovery application in Woodside Energy Ltd & Ors v Morrissey & Ors was dismissed. It was, frankly, an unexpected decision—and a fairly scathing judgment—from the Western Australian Supreme Court. Everyone watching thought it was a process that would continue on for years. In his succinct ruling, Justice Matthew Howard found "the plaintiffs' evidence and submissions do not rise above mere conjecture or speculation". The decision doesn't mean the activists are off the hook, only that this particular application failed. What happens next comes down to Woodside.
The decision itself, however, was the real story. That was buried further down the judgment under a subheading that read: "A further matter". The details are perhaps best left to Justice Howard to describe:
In the lead-up to the hearing, my chambers became aware that the part of Court and Tribunal Services which is responsible for the security of the courts, tribunals and judicial officers in this State had been contacted by Woodside's senior security advisor.
It is not uncommon for that part of Court and Tribunal Services to contact a chambers in the lead-up to a hearing which has some particular feature of public prominence or some other political dimension which may attract some greater than usual public interest.
However, from the communication between that part of Court and Tribunal Services and my chambers it appeared that it had been suggested by Woodside that there be a meeting between that part of the Court and Tribunal Services and Woodside's security advisor.
My chambers made it clear that I considered that it would be inappropriate for me or my chambers to become aware of anything that was discussed at such a meeting. I also expressed my concern that such a meeting may give rise to a perception that the Court, broadly conceived, may be working or co-operating with the plaintiffs.
I wish to make plain that I do not know if such a meeting took place and, if it did, what was discussed.
I have no reason to infer that the plaintiffs' security advisor intended in any way to tip the scales on this application. That, of course, applies with even more force to the Court and Tribunal Services.
Nonetheless, the importance of courts going about the administration of justice uninfluenced by external matters, and being perceived to do so, cannot be overstated. The acceptance, generally, of judicial determinations as independent depends on that. The Court must be vigilant to ensure its independence and that nothing is done which appears to undermine that.
I brought these matters to the attention of the parties at the hearing. I considered that I should do so as it was a matter likely to be known to the plaintiffs, but not to the defendants.
The precise nature of the request and the chronology of what occurred is not clear from this recount. What is clear is that the interaction so alarmed Justice Howard that he felt compelled to disclose the request in open court and devote a portion of his judgment to giving an account.
All of this makes this episode remarkable and raises several questions of public interest. First and foremost: what exactly happened here? Did Woodside's senior security specifically request a meeting to speak with the judge or his chambers? Or was this is a case where someone mentioned the meeting in an off-hand way during a phone call? Alternatively: did someone in the operations team take the initiative and loop in chambers asking if it wanted to attend? Also: why was defence counsel not told? More importantly: was this the first time this has happened? Did Woodside's senior security advisor make similar requests during hearings for the criminal proceedings against the three activists? Because that would certainly raises questions about how those processes were conducted. And, if so: has Woodside done similar in any other matter? In fact, has any other company?
I have asked these sorts questions and others, but so far no one in any position to answer is excited to explain. I have been told that, in Western Australia, the administration of the courts is split owing to the separation of powers. Matters involving chambers or the functions of the judiciary is handled by one area, with logistical and operational matters such as security are handled by a team within the Department of Justice. That's about it.
Naturally, I am going to keep on it—an FOI has been filed and this will become a standalone story over at Drilled, but in the meantime, this is one of those episodes that are all too familiar in Australia. When powerful institutions or individuals are challenged, every resource is marshalled to focus on the lives and conduct of those making that challenge. When those same powerful institutions behave in ways that raise questions and demand clarity, it's all too easy to shrug off. Suddenly, there is nothing more to add.
Good Reads
Because we here at Raising Hell know how much you love homework…
- Carole Cadwalladr has a long but great write up of her long-running investigations into Nigel Farage's relationship with a convicted money launder, and how it was undermined by the British media establishment at The Nerve. Cadwalladr, as they say, was doing it before it was cool.
"Many books about climate change are worthy but dull. Slick, however, is as readable as it is shocking." - Richard Denniss, The Australia Institute, writing in The Conversation.
Reporting In
Where I recap what I’ve been doing this last fortnight so you know I’m not just using your money to stimulate the local economy …
- 'Albanese keeps backing lobbyists of public opinion, our analysis shows' (Deepcut news, 3 August 2026).
Royce Kurmelovs
Before You Go (Go)…
- Want to get in touch? Message me on Signal at username RoyceK.11. Alternatively you can send hard copies to: PO Box 134, Welland SA 5007
- And if you’ve come this far, consider supporting me further by picking up one of my books, leaving a review or by just telling a friend about Raising Hell!