Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QLC
  3. 2025
  4. Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors - [2025] QLC 23

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors[2025] QLC 23

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors[2025] QLC 23

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QLC 23

PARTIES:

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd, Total Energies EP Australia, Total Energies EP Australia II, Santos TPY CSG, LLC, Santos TPY, LLC, Santos Queensland, LLC, Bronco Energy Pty Limited, PAPL (Upstream) Pty Limited, KGLNG E&P Pty Ltd

(applicants)

v

Owen Arthur William Price

(respondent)

FILE NO:

MER074-23

PARTIES:

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd, Total Energies EP Australia, Total Energies EP Australia II, Santos TPY CSG, LLC, Santos TPY, LLC, Santos Queensland, LLC, Bronco Energy Pty Limited, PAPL (Upstream) Pty Limited, KGLNG E&P Pty Ltd

(applicants)

v

Rob Price & Gail Price

(first respondents)

Price Cattle Company Pty Ltd (ACN 634 898 534) ATF The Trustee for The AW Price Family Trust (ABN 79 392 613 363)

(second respondent)

FILE NO:

MER070-24

PARTIES:

Owen Arthur William Price

(applicant)

v

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd, Total Energies EP Australia, Total Energies EP Australia II, Santos TPY CSG, LLC, Santos TPY, LLC, Santos Queensland, LLC, Bronco Energy Pty Limited, PAPL (Upstream) Pty Limited, KGLNG E&P Pty Ltd

(respondents)

FILE NO:

MER337-23

PROCEEDING:

General application

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

8 September 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

JR McNamara

ORDERS:

  1. The General Application filed 5 September 2025 by the Price parties is dismissed.
  2. Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – where party seeks orders for disclosure in eight categories – whether the disclosure sought is directly relevant to an allegation in issue in the proceedings

Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 s 83

Land Court Rules 2022 r 4, r 13, r 14

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

Adani Mining Pty Ltd and Anor v Pennings [2021] QSC 343

Maller & Anor v Australia Pacific LNG CSG Transmissions Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QLC 12

APPEARANCES:

R Litster KC, with P Nevard (instructed by Johnson Winter Slattery) for Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors

E Morzone KC, with A Hellewell (instructed by Rees R & Sydney Jones Solicitors) for Owen Arthur William Price & Ors

  1. [1]
    These three matters are listed for hearing in the Land Court for three weeks commencing 17 November 2025. They concern issues as between the energy company Santos and associated entities[1] (the Santos parties) and the owner and occupier of the cattle property, Tarcoola (the Price parties).[2] The Santos parties are the holder of PL 234. There has been a conduct and compensation agreement (CCA)[3] between the Santos and Price parties since 17 April 2018 in relation to twelve wells on Tarcoola.
  2. [2]
    The matter MER337-23 is referred to as the ‘breach’ matter, that is, it concerns allegations of breaches of the 2018 CCA (as amended) by the Santos parties. The originating application was filed by the landholder on 26 September 2023. The alleged breaches are described in Attachment A to the originating application.
  3. [3]
    Matters MER074-23 and MER070-24 are referred to as the ‘owner’ matter (Owen Price) and the ‘occupier’ matter (Rob and Gail Price) respectively, and were brought by the Santos parties for the purpose of deciding the terms of a new CCA on Tarcoola. The proposed CCA is to facilitate investigation activities and proposed wells for phase 2 of the project. The MER074-23 originating application was filed 9 May 2023. The MER070-24 originating application was filed 13 March 2024. 
  4. [4]
    With nine weeks to the commencement of the hearings, on Friday 5 September 2025 the Santos parties and the Price parties both filed general applications seeking disclosure. 
  5. [5]
    The applications came before me on Monday 8 September 2025.
  6. [6]
    The Santos parties’ application for disclosure was resolved by a ruling in respect of some aspects, and agreement as to others, and the making of the Orders of 8 September 2025 in MER337-23, in particular order 2.
  7. [7]
    At the conclusion of the hearing regarding the Price parties’ disclosure request on 8 September 2025, I dismissed the application, with one reservation. The reservation was that I wanted to give further consideration to one category of disclosure sought.  I informed the parties that brief written reasons would be delivered.

The rules

  1. [8]
    Disclosure in the Land Court is governed by the Land Court Rules 2022 (LCR), and, to the extent the LCR do not provide, the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR).
  2. [9]
    Division 3 Disclosure, rules 13 and 14 were introduced into the LCR in 2022.

Rule 13 Disclosure must be for main purpose

A party must not apply for an order for disclosure unless the making of the order is in accordance with the main purposes of these rules.

Rule 14  Disclosure

  1. (1)
    A party may apply to the court for an order for disclosure by another party to the proceeding.
  1. (2)
    The application must state the proposed scope of the disclosure.
  1. (3)
    If the court makes an order for disclosure by a party, the party must disclose documents in accordance with the order.
  1. (4)
    Nothing in this rule prevents the parties to a proceeding agreeing at any time to disclose documents to each other by consent.
  1. [10]
    The main purpose of the LCR pursuant to rule 4 is to ensure the Court facilitates the quick and just resolution of the issues in a proceeding and avoids undue delay, expense and technicality in a proceeding; and to ensure a party to a proceeding undertakes to participate in the proceeding in an expeditious way and comply with any order or direction made by the Court. 
  2. [11]
    In Maller & Anor v Australia Pacific LNG CSG Transmissions Pty Ltd & Ors,[4] then Member Stilgoe OAM said at [12]:

“Rules 13 and 14 displace the operation of the uniform rules, in only one respect. Under both the Land Court Rules and the uniform rules, disclosure between parties should be targeted and conducted efficiently, without undue delay, expense, and technicality. Under both rules, the parties can apply to the Court for an order about disclosure. The difference is that, in the Land Court, there is no right to disclosure (and no duty to disclose) if the parties cannot agree.”

The principles

  1. [12]
    A decision to order disclosure is an exercise of discretion.
  2. [13]
    The subject matter of an application for disclosure must be in the possession or under the control of the other party, and must be directly relevant to an allegation in issue in the proceedings.
  3. [14]
    Direct relevance is the threshold issue in the process of disclosure.
  4. [15]
    Whether a document is directly relevant to an issue is a question of fact in the circumstances of the case; ‘directly relevant’ means something which tends to prove or disprove the allegation in issue – which enables the party calling for production of the document to advance its own case or damage the case of their adversary. An allegation which is admitted or agreed, is not in issue.
  5. [16]
    A document will not be directly relevant if, rather than tending to prove an issue in dispute, it merely tends to prove something that may be relevant to a disputed issue.
  6. [17]
    That is, mere relevance to a disputed issue is not ‘directly relevant’. 
  7. [18]
    Factors that may have a bearing on the way in which the discretion might be exercised include (Adani Mining Pty Ltd and Anor v Pennings [2021] QSC 343):
    1. whether the applying party has exhausted the means available to obtain information needed to advance their case;
    2. whether the applying party has identified, with as much precision as is reasonably possible, the nature of their case;
    3. whether the applying party can point to a discernible factual foundation for their case, such that their request cannot be dismissed on the basis that it is no more than a fishing expedition;
    4. whether the factual foundation appears on the face of the materials, without the need for further explanation;
    5. whether and to what extent the making of the order would be oppressive.

What are the issues in dispute

  1. [19]
    It is by reference to the originating applications, and in the owner and occupier proceedings (MER074-23 and MER070-24) the exchanged tracked CCAs,[5] that the issues in dispute are defined.

The Price disclosure application

  1. [20]
    On 26 August 2025, the solicitor for the Price parties wrote to the solicitor for the Santos parties in these terms:[6] In order to quantify the loss sustained by our clients and also to ascertain the appropriate conditions for the new conduct and compensation proceedings, we seek the disclosure of material that is believed to be in Santos’ possession.
  2. [21]
    The 26 August 2025 correspondence then identified 8 categories of documents for which the Price parties sought disclosure. A copy of the letter is annexed to these reasons.
  3. [22]
    At the hearing, Senior Counsel for the Price parties, for the purposes of submissions grouped the categories as follows (and discussed them in the following order): category 1 and 4; category 7 and 8; category 5 and 6, and category 2 and 3.   
  4. [23]
    In support of the application was the affidavit of Ms Brigid Ann Price filed 5 September 2025 together with Annexures BP-1 to BP-15. Ms Price is the wife of Owen Price who is the registered owner of Tarcoola. Owen and Brigid Price live on a property called Hillyvale which is located immediately to the west of Tarcoola.

Category 1 & 4

  1. [24]
    The requested documents concern “investigations currently being conducted, and investigations completed” by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development (DNRMMRR) in relation to Tarcoola including but not limited to reports of the breach conduct by Santos; investigation documents including correspondence, file notes, and photographs; and investigation outcome reports or draft reports concerning Tarcoola.[7] Also sought are all documents between Santos and DNRMMRR related to “any Right to Information requests” made with respect to Tarcoola “including” any list of documents provided to Santos by DNRMMRR, and any correspondence or objections made by Santos to any of those documents being disclosed. 
  2. [25]
    In Ms Price’s affidavit at paragraphs [21] to [29] she refers to correspondence with DNRMMRR and a Right to Information (RTI) request regarding “DNRMMRR’s investigation on Tarcoola”. Annexure BP-12 is a letter from RTI Services to Ms Price dated 16 January 2025 concerning the RTI application. The documents sought in Ms Price’s RTI application were “All documents in relation to the land access inspection undertaken at … Tarcoola, on 30 August 2018, including the Land Access Code Inspection Report completed on 23 November 2018”. The reply letter from RTI Services says that it was necessary to consult “with a third party” who might have concerns about the disclosure of some of the material; that the third party advised RTI Services that they did object to the disclosure; that the RTI Services Officer did not agree with the third party’s argument for exemption; and that the RTI Services Officer “decided to grant access to the subject document”. 
  3. [26]
    Ultimately the complete (40 page) inspection report was filed in the MER074-23 and MER070-24 proceedings, attached to the 21 February 2025 affidavit of Shaun McTeigue.[8] That report is titled: Land Access Code Inspection – conducted for Santos – completed on 23 November 2018. The cover sheet notes: ‘Inspection commencement’ 30/08/18; Attending Project Officers: Kate Burey, Jim Herbert; Attending Tenure Holder Representatives: Dean Salter, Santos Landholder Liaison; Report Completed by: Kate Burey.
  4. [27]
    The Price parties have requested through their disclosure application any correspondence or objections made by Santos to documents, the subject of the RTI request, being disclosed. The Price parties have the full report, despite third party objection to the inclusion of information that it contains.
  5. [28]
    How any correspondence between Santos and RTI Services concerning an objection to the release of material in the report is directly relevant to an issue in dispute in these proceedings is not explained. How draft reports and correspondence (by whom, or between whom) are relevant to an issue in dispute is not explained. Presumably any draft of the report, to the extent any are kept, are a product of the Department and would be held by the Department, not the Santos parties. How any such documents, if they exist, would tend to prove or disprove an allegation in issue is opaque. 
  6. [29]
    Ms Price expresses her belief, said to be based on conversations with staff members, or her understanding, that there are other investigation documents. The Land Access report notes: “… that further correspondence and photos were received from landholders and are in included at the end of this report”. The report does not indicate that any other documents or photographs were received from the Santos parties. Other photos attached to the report include shots of signage, records of attendance sheets, the site office and lay-down facility, and wash-down declarations.
  7. [30]
    At BP-14 is a Notice of Outcome of Complaint from DNRMMRR Executive Director Georesources Delivery dated 18 August 2025. The complaints appear to be the same complaints or similar to the complaints made to the Land Access Ombudsman (LAO) (discussed below). The letter says that the Department has issued a Warning Letter to Santos for its failure to provide four notices of entry in the time period for 2023/2024 as required, and states that the Department is satisfied that Santos has rectified its administrative processes to ensure that Notices of Entry are issued within the required timeframe in the future. These are matters of fact and not disputed.
  8. [31]
    The disclosure request talks of “investigations currently being conducted, and investigations completed”. There is nothing before me to suggest that there is any investigation currently being conducted. There is evidence to indicate investigations concluded, a report published, and the report is in the hands of the applicants. The disclosure application as regards category 1 and category 4 lacks scope, is not directed such as to prove or disprove a matter in issue in either the breach, or the CCA proceedings, and generally is devoid of the fundamental requirements of an application for disclosure. 

Category 7 & 8

  1. [32]
    The requested documents are all documents authored or provided by the LAO to Santos regarding “the breach notifications and complaints in relation to Tarcoola” for the period of 17 April 2018 to current (26 August 2025); and all correspondence and reports provided to the LAO “regarding the breach notifications and complaints in relation to Tarcoola” during the same period.[9]
  2. [33]
    In her affidavit at paragraph [1] Ms Price says that on 2 October 2020 she contacted the LAO to lodge a complaint regarding Santos’ breaches of the CCA. Annexed to Ms Price’s affidavit is the 15 July 2021 LAO ‘Draft’ Notice of Outcome of Investigation.
  3. [34]
    The Notice of Outcome includes a table identifying the issues that were resolved or partially resolved before the LAO was contacted and before the resolution. There were seven remaining issues.
  4. [35]
    At page 4 of the LAO Notice of Outcome it says that: In accordance with the LAO preliminary inquiries process, the information received from the resource company was provided to the landholder for consideration and response. After issuing an Investigation Notice the LAO received a response from the resource company on 17 December 2020, and responses from the landholder on six further occasions. The LAO reports the responses of “both parties” and outcomes of their investigation in some detail; concludes that no further investigation is required; and advises that the file will be closed. The resource company advised the LAO that, for example, they emailed the landholder with vehicle and lease pad check reports on certain dates and the In Vehicle Monitoring System for a particular period; and they emailed the landholder each week with reports relating to lease checks, sign in sheets with washdown records etc. These documents are held by the landholder. What other documents the landholder now seeks through disclosure is not apparent.
  5. [36]
    It would appear from the documents annexed to Ms Price’s affidavit that the involvement of the LAO occurred between September 2020 and 15 July 2021.
  6. [37]
    There is nothing to indicate that there was an ongoing investigation by the LAO, and no basis upon which to believe that documents concerning “the breach notifications in relation to Tarcoola” were exchanged between the Santos parties and the LAO outside that period.
  7. [38]
    There is no clear explanation for how the documents, if any exist, are directly relevant to an issue in dispute, which issue they concern, or that the documents would in fact tend to prove or disprove the allegation in issue. If any such documents exist, they might (or might not) be relevant to a disputed issue, but they are not necessarily directly relevant.

Category 5 & 6

  1. [39]
    I indicated at the end of the hearing that I wanted to give further consideration to category 5. 
  2. [40]
    Category 5 & 6 concern potential non-compliance issues raised with the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI). Correspondence from DETSI to Santos dated 10 July 2023 (BP-5) says that the Department had received a ‘community notification’ and was investigating potential non-compliance regarding sections of ground above installed pipe on PPL 2066 and another section of PL 234 that had not had soil profiles properly reinstated and had weed species present.
  3. [41]
    An email from Compliance Delivery Manager, Chris Ashcroft, dated 25 June 2025 (BP-6) says that the Department has not been provided with evidence to confirm that the identified sections of pipeline trenches and ‘right of way’ have been vegetated with ground cover which is established and growing as required by Condition J6 of the Environmental Authority. I note that PPL 2066 is not the subject of the relevant CCAs.
  4. [42]
    Senior Counsel for the Santos parties says that the very purpose of the breach proceedings is to determine whether the situation with weeds persists and what should be done about it if it persists. To that, expert agronomists have prepared reports for the purposes of the hearing.  
  5. [43]
    The disclosure request in category 5 is for “all documents … between Santos and DETSI regarding any RTI request with respect to Tarcoola.”[10] The attachments to Ms Price’s affidavit (BP-8) confirm an RTI request from Ms Price on 20 November 2024 seeking records of an inspection on Tarcoola between 29 February 2024 and 20 November 2024. Document BP-9 is a 29 August 2025 email from DETSI Compliance Delivery Manager, Chris Ashcroft, seeking confirmation of the material Ms Price was seeking through RTI, that is, a “report” concerning attendance by Santos or their consultants on Tarcoola on 17 June 2023 and 25 July 2023. Mr Ashcroft offers to further discuss the matter with Ms Price and indicates when he would be available to have those discussions. It is unknown if this offer has been taken up by Ms Price.
  6. [44]
    Senior Counsel for the Price parties said at the hearing that the DETSI RTI process is the “subject of an internal review”. Senior Counsel for the Santos parties says the request is directed to the nature and purpose of an RTI request, not an issue in dispute in the proceedings. 
  7. [45]
    Having further considered the matter I am of the view that the request lacks a sufficient basis upon which a disclosure order should be made in relation to category 5. 
  8. [46]
    Category 6 concerns “all documents … that relate to the notified breach and/or investigations and/or rehabilitation of Tarcoola completed by the DETSI” …. including “all reports pertaining to the investigation of the offence”; correspondence pertaining “to the decision to or not to prosecute Santos …”; and “any correspondence sent by Santos to DETSI in relation to Tarcoola”.[11] 
  9. [47]
    Again, the breadth of this request is unreasonable. No timeframe is specified.  Assertions such as “pertaining to the investigation of the offence” suggests that an offence has been committed. If there has been a breach, which may be denied, it may or may not constitute an offence. The assertion regarding a decision to or not to prosecute, also suggests an offence. The request lacks definition, and there is nothing to inform me with any precision what issue in dispute the requested disclosure would likely prove or disprove.

Category 2 & 3

  1. [48]
    These categories request “all documents … that relate to the preliminary activities and advanced activities conducted on Tarcoola …” including but not limited to a range of reports, photographs and activities; documentary evidence “of each stage of construction” including progress plans etc; all correspondence between Santos and the owners and occupiers of Tarcoola; all entry notices issued for Tarcoola; and field notes by all land liaison officers or land access staff between 17 April 2018 and 26 August 2025.[12]
  2. [49]
    Documentary evidence requested includes evidence going to “the state of the land (Tarcoola) the subject of the CCA, including but not limited to” … photographs or other surveillance of the land; any scouting activities; any cultural heritage reports; any flora, fauna and/or weed reports; any soil testing reports etc.
  3. [50]
    The breadth of this category of disclosure is again unreasonable. As an example, the relevance of a cultural heritage report (if one exists) to an issue in dispute is entirely obscure. Entry notices issued for Tarcoola are requested. It was accepted that the landholder is issued with entry notices. All correspondence between Santos and the landholder is requested. This is material the landholder should have. Other material is included in material filed with expert reports.
  4. [51]
    There is no attempt to link the request to an issue in dispute – except in the broadest of ways. Compliance with an order in these terms would in any reasonable or pragmatic way be almost impossible. It effectively calls for all design, technical and engineering plans, drawings, models and reports prepared for the work carried out to date. Although in oral submissions it was said that the Price parties are not wanting design drawings and would be happy to exclude engineering drawings, there has otherwise been no attempt to focus the request or link it in any way to an issue in dispute and how the particular documents might prove or disprove an issue in dispute.
  5. [52]
    The Santos parties filed an affidavit of Mr William Oxby, solicitor, concerning the estimated time and effort required to comply with an order for disclosure in the terms sought. With the hearing listed to commence on 17 November 2025, Mr Oxby estimates, based on preliminary investigations, it would take 2-3 months or longer.[13] On this estimate the hearing dates would need to be abandoned.   
  6. [53]
    For the reasons already stated the application is dismissed. I am unable to conclude that the categories of disclosure sought are directly relevant to specific allegations in issue (and which would tend to prove or disprove an allegation in issue); the application lacks precision; and the application is brought very late in the proceedings - to require disclosure as sought would be oppressive and would not facilitate the just and quick resolution of the proceedings, rather it runs the risk of causing delay.

Orders

  1. The General Application filed 5 September 2025 by the Price parties is dismissed.
  2. Costs reserved.

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QLC 23

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QLC 23

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QLC 23

Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QLC 23

Footnotes

[1]  Santos and associated entities are those named as parties in each matter.

[2]  The Price parties are Owen Price (owner), and Rob and Gail Price (occupier).

[3]Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 s 83.

[4]  [2022] QLC 12.

[5]  Applicants’ Third Further CCA filed 7 May 2025; Respondents’ Tracked CCA filed 31 July 2025; Applicants’ Response to Tracked CCA filed 11 August 2025.

[6]  Affidavit of Jessica Anne Day filed 29 August 2025, JD-6; Affidavit of Amy Cocks filed 5 September 2025, AC-1.

[7]  Affidavit of Amy Cocks filed 5 September, AC-1.

[8]  Affidavit of Shaun Peter McTeigue filed 21 February 2025, SM-21.

[9]  Affidavit of Brigid Ann Price filed 5 September 2025 [20].

[10]  Affidavit of Amy Cocks filed 5 September 2025, AC-1.

[11]  Ibid.

[12]  Ibid.

[13]  Affidavit of William T Oxby filed 8 September 2025 [5].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price; Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors v Price & Ors; Price v Santos TOGA Pty Ltd & Ors

  • MNC:

    [2025] QLC 23

  • Court:

    QLC

  • Judge(s):

    JR McNamara

  • Date:

    12 Sep 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings [2021] QSC 343
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QSC 343
Cite 2 - [2021] QSC 343
Maller v Australia Pacific LNG CSG Transmissions Pty Ltd [2022] QLC 12
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QLC 12
Cite 2 - [2022] QLC 12

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.