After all the times you have cursed the inpenetrable obtuseness of Gunns, you now have reason to give thanks for the quality. 

Had Gunns initiated the action in Tasmania, the record suggests they could have banked on the damages they asked.  Tasmanian law relating to forestry has been amended time and again, even in the midst of an action such as Wielangta, to ensure that opponents have Buckley’s of legal success.

By filing the case in Victoria, Gunns may have hoped to make things even more expensive for the mainly Tasmanian defendants, but this also put the case in a neutral jurisdiction which also is home to numbers of competent lawyers with environmental sympathies. Gunns may have had some reason for the manoeuvre, but it looks woderfully stupid from here.

John Hayward

I believe the company is like a bull being led around with a nose ring by a flotilla of lawyers. The lawyers have learned how to accommodate the directors testosterone-fueled rages and translate that venom into some very healthy pay days.