Woodside Fails in Court Bid Against Climate Activists Over Stink-Bomb Protest

Energy giant Woodside has failed in its Supreme Court bid to force climate activists to hand over documents about the planning of a stink-bomb protest which prompted the evacuation of its Perth headquarters.

The stink bomb was let off inside the lobby of Woodside's 29-storey building in the city's CBD in 2023.

Three activists who were sentenced over the incident last year were named in a civil suit brought by the company which asked the court to order they produce any documents they held that would reveal who was involved in the "planning, preparation and/or execution" of the protest.

The company also sought orders for the activists to be examined in court about those documents.

Supreme Court Justice Matthew Howard today dismissed that application, saying despite Woodside having "clearly devoted very considerable resources to their application", it had not convinced the court that an order was needed to show who else was involved.

"I find that [Woodside's] evidence and submissions do not rise above mere conjecture or speculation," he wrote.

Justice Howard said it was clear WA Police had conducted a "significant investigation" into the incident, and that the identities of the two other activists who were not charged were already known.

'Serious invasion of privacy’

Protesters aligned with the Disrupt Burrup Hub campaign group set off the stink bomb on June 1, 2023.

Last week, Woodside's lawyers told the court the company intended to seek financial damages from everyone involved in the protest, arguing it needed the documents to identify all those responsible for the damage and loss of productivity.

But Justice Howard rejected Woodside's arguments, including that an online Disrupt Burrup Hub guide, which referred to protest activities involving groups of eight people, proved more people were involved in the stink-bomb stunt.

He noted the guide was published after the headquarters protest.

"With great respect, I simply do not understand the submission," he wrote about the company's suggestion that a separate protest coordinated by Disrupt Burrup Hub at the home of then-CEO Meg O'Neill indicated others may have been involved.

Even if he was wrong about those views, Justice Howard wrote, he said the court had discretion to grant orders in cases like these and would have declined to do so.

"[Woodside's] application would, if granted, involve a very serious invasion of privacy and confidentiality and should only be made as would be required by the interests of justice," he wrote.

Caution against discouraging activism

Later in his judgement, Justice Howard suggested the way Woodside approached the case could create a perception it was discouraging protests against its operations.

He wrote that there was a "tendency" in the case for Woodside to "conflate the incident with the broader activities of the Disrupt Burrup Hub group".

The judge acknowledged Woodside took "exception" to those protests but said it was "not of assistance" in resolving this case.

"The apparent conflation in places may lead to an inference that this application is part of Woodside's broader response to discourage protests against its projects," he wrote.

"The possibility of such conflation suggests strongly to me that the court needs [to] be particularly careful that any order made not go beyond the incident itself."

Justice Howard also revealed that prior to the hearing of the case, Woodside's senior security adviser had contacted the court's security team asking to meet with them about the matter.

He said while that was not unusual in cases that attracted public attention, he indicated 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 have no reason to infer that the plaintiffs' security advisor intended in any way to tip the scales on this application," Justice Howard wrote.

"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 court must be vigilant to ensure its independence and that nothing is done which appears to undermine that."

Ruling a relief to protester

A Woodside spokesperson said the company noted the court's judgement and was reviewing it.

One of the protesters named in the suit, Joana Partyka, said the judgement came as a relief.

"I've experienced that [invasion of privacy] firsthand already," she said.

"It's one thing for that demand to come from the authorities, but for that to come from a private corporation is incredibly concerning."

Ms Partyka said she was "discombobulated" by the speed of Justice Howard's ruling after just one week, but said it gave her a sense of vindication.

"I think it's a hugely humiliating decision for Woodside," she said.