Woodside demands activists reveal names of stink-bomb stunt planners

Energy giant Woodside has taken three climate activists to court in a bid to force them to hand over documents about the planning of a stink-bomb protest that forced the evacuation of its Perth headquarters.

Protesters aligned with the Disrupt Burrup Hub campaign group set off the stink bomb inside the lobby of Woodside's 29-storey building in Perth's CBD in 2023.

The company said that triggered the evacuation of the entire building for several hours and it intended to seek financial damages from those involved due to damage and loss of productivity.

Named in the Supreme Court civil suit was Kristen Morrissey, who released the gas, as well as Joana Partyka and Emil Davey who were involved in planning and preparation.

All three of the activists were sentenced in relation to the incident last year.

Suspicion more people involved

Appearing for Woodside in court on Thursday, senior council Steven Penglis said the company believed there were more than three people involved in the planning of the protest.

"We intend to commence proceedings against all the parties we can identify," he said.

Justice Matthew Howard questioned why the company believed "beyond mere speculation" there were more involved, noting an "extensive police operation" had already been completed.

"This is a modus operandi of protest groups around the world," he said.

Among the reasons offered to the court, Mr Penglis said a fourth person had been identified, but not charged, as being involved during the criminal proceedings.

He said the protest action had a "considerable impact on Woodside and its employees".

Mr Penglis said a protest at former Woodside chief executive Meg O'Neill's home by people aligned with Disrupt Burrup Hub was a "real life example" of others being involved in the planning and rehearsal rather than just the protest itself.

In that case in August 2023, four people drove to her home at dusk, planning to splash paint and lock themselves to a gate before the operation was disrupted by police already waiting at the home.

The stunt was documented by an ABC Four Corners crew, who accompanied the protesters to Ms O'Neill's home, which sparked backlash from politicians and media commentators at the time.

The ABC initially said the crew had no prior knowledge of the protest, but former managing director David Anderson later acknowledged it did have "some awareness" of what was planned.

Intention to 'dissuade activists'

Defence lawyer for Morrissey, Dane Chandler, said his client had volunteered access to her devices during the police investigation, and police had searched her residence and taken documents.

"I submit there is no reason to examine her, on the basis that she has no documents," he said.

The court also heard Woodside had sent similar letters to a total of five activists, which the defence said proved the company already knew of the names and addresses of more people.

Tom Blackburn appeared for the other two defendants, Partyka and Davey, and argued "none of it rises above the level of speculation".

Justice Howard adjourned the hearing to take some time to consider his decision.

Speaking outside court Partyka said she believed the "sole intention" of the litigation was to dissuade activists.

Woodside said it does not comment on matters before the courts, but pointed to a previously published company position statement on activism.

"Woodside condemns unlawful acts that are intended to threaten, harm, intimidate or disrupt our employees or any other member of the community going about their daily lives," the statement read.

"Woodside fully supports respectful debate, including in relation to complex challenges like climate change."