Former Quintis director Graeme Scott has had an early victory in his defamation battle with several of the company's most senior executives, with the Supreme Court ruling there should be no restriction on his access to one of the documents at the centre of the case.
Mr Scott's case relates to comments allegedly contained in a series of letters sent to the corporate watchdog relating to his efforts to gain approval for an Australian Financial Services Licence for his work with Agri Management (WA).
Defendants in the action include Quintis’ chief financial officer Alistair Stevens, non-executive director Julius Matthys, chief executive Richard Henfrey, chair Mel Ashton and several entities attached to the Perth-based sandalwood producer, including Sandalwood Properties and Quintis Holdco. They have vowed to defend the action.
In a judgment published today, Justice Kenneth Martin rejected the defendants' request for conditions to be imposed on Mr Scott regarding his access to 2018 legal advice from Allens Linklaters to the receivers and managers of the Quintis Group.
Justice Martin said the advice "identified a number of potential 'claims for contravention of the Corporations Act's insider trading and market manipulation provisions against Frank Wilson'".
The defendants' lawyer Carmel Galati asked the court to allow Mr Scott's lawyers, Robert Anderson and Jonelle Di Lena, to inspect the Allens Linklaters advice "provided they only use the advice for the purpose of the proceedings and that they only disclose the contents of it generally to the extent the plaintiff needs to provide instructions".
Mr Scott wanted access to the document without any restriction.
Justice Martin indicated restrictions regarding the use to which such documents could be put were already in place under common law and an order was not required. The defendants were ordered to pay Mr Scott's legal costs of the argument.
In his writ, Mr Scott alleges the parties made false and defamatory statements in three letters sent to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission between May 26, 2021, and June 18, 2021.
Mr Scott is seeking damages for the alleged defamation, including aggravated damages, as well as an injunction that would prevent the parties from repeating or republishing the defamatory comments.
At the time the case was launched, a Quintis spokesperson said the company intended to vigorously defend its position on the grounds that the statements were true and covered by qualified privilege.
