Woodside Energy Fails to Force Climate Activists to Name Stink Bomb Protesters

Justice Howard Rejects Woodside’s Bid for Activist Data

The incident involved the release of canisters containing stench gas inside the lobby of the company’s 29-storey Perth headquarters, which forced a mass evacuation of staff.

The three activists—Kristen Morrissey, Emil Davey, and Joana Partyka—had already pleaded guilty and received sentences for their roles in the demonstration. Woodside, however, sought a court order to force the trio to produce materials that would reveal the identities of any other individuals involved in the planning, preparation and/or execution of the stunt. The company also requested that the activists be examined in court regarding these potential co-conspirators.

Justice Howard found that the energy giant’s legal efforts, despite involving very considerable resources, failed to move beyond speculation. I find that [Woodside’s] evidence and submissions do not rise above mere conjecture or speculation, Justice Howard wrote in his judgment, as reported by WAtoday.

Privacy Concerns and the Risk of Conflation

Beyond the lack of evidence, Justice Howard expressed significant concern regarding the privacy implications of the application. He noted that the court has the discretion to deny such requests when they appear to overreach, particularly when the interests of justice are not served by such an intrusion.

“[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.”

Justice Matthew Howard, Supreme Court of Western Australia

The judge also cautioned against the company’s attempt to link the specific headquarters incident to the broader activities of the Disrupt Burrup Hub protest group. He observed that Woodside had a tendency to conflate the incident with the broader activities of the Disrupt Burrup Hub group. Justice Howard emphasized that the court must remain vigilant to ensure that its processes are not utilized as part of a perceived strategy to discourage public dissent against the company’s operations.

Activist Reaction and Future Legal Outlook

For the activists involved, the court’s decision is seen as a major victory. Joana Partyka described the attempt to unmask further participants as hugely humiliating for the company, while Emil Davey characterized Woodside’s legal strategy as an effort to silence opposition to its fossil fuel projects, such as the North West Shelf and Pluto LNG developments.

In a previous hearing, the activists had framed the company’s litigation as a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, commonly known as a SLAPP suit. The activists have consistently argued that their protest was a necessary alarm regarding the climate crisis and the environmental impact of the Burrup Hub development. Woodside has stated that it is currently reviewing the judgment, leaving the door open to potential future actions, though it has not confirmed its next steps.

Justice Howard’s ruling concludes the current phase of the company’s attempt to expand its civil case beyond the three individuals already sentenced. As it stands, the court has prioritized the privacy of the activists over the company’s desire to identify further parties, citing the sufficiency of the initial police investigation into the 2023 incident.