Legal Research
Cases
Byrnes v Origin Energy Ltd

Byrnes v Origin Energy Ltd

Case [2025] VSC 504 20 August 2025

Costs

Group Litigation

Statutory Interpretation

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S ECI 2025 00287

SCOTT BYRNES	Plaintiff
v
ORIGIN ENERGY LIMITED (ACN 000 051 696)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Waller J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 July 2025
DATE OF RULING:	20 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Byrnes v Origin Energy Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 504

---

GROUP PROCEEDINGS — Costs — Application for a group costs order — Costs to be calculated as a percentage of the amount of any award or settlement recovered — Whether proposed rate of 35 per cent appropriate or necessary — Principles to be applied — GCO made at a rate of 30 per cent — Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 33ZDA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr WAD Edwards KC with Ms R Howe	Phi Finney McDonald
For the Defendant	Ms J Findlay	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

HIS HONOUR:

A. INTRODUCTION

This is an application for a group costs order in a group proceeding brought under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (Act).

The representative plaintiff, Mr Scott Byrnes, brings his claim against Origin Energy Limited (ACN 000 051 696) (Origin), a large integrated energy company in Australia.

The group members in this proceeding are persons who acquired an interest in Origin shares or equity swaps between 20 October 2021 and 31 May 2022 (claim period).

The plaintiff alleges that Origin breached various statutory provisions by making misleading or deceptive representations and failed to comply with its continuous disclosure obligations as an Australian Stock Exchange-listed company in relation to the information Origin provided, or failed to provide, to investors during the claim period about its expected future earnings. The plaintiff claims that Origin’s share price was inflated by the alleged contraventions and that the plaintiff and group members suffered loss and damage as a result. The defendant disputes the plaintiff’s claims.

By summons filed on 17 June 2025, the plaintiff seeks a group costs order (GCO) pursuant to s 33ZDA(1) of the Act that the legal costs payable to the plaintiff’s solicitors, Phi Finney McDonald Pty Ltd (PFM), be calculated as 35% of the amount of any award or settlement that may be recovered in the proceeding.

In support of his application, the plaintiff relies on:

(a) the affidavit of Mr Byrnes affirmed on 10 June 2025 (Byrnes Affidavit);

(b) the affidavit of Mr Timothy Finney, a Director and Principal Lawyer of PFM, affirmed on 17 June 2025 (First Finney Affidavit);

(c) the affidavit of Mr Finney affirmed on 24 July 2025 (Second Finney Affidavit); and

(d) the plaintiff’s submissions in support of his application for a GCO filed on 15 July 2025 (Plaintiff’s Submissions).

The defendant neither consents to nor opposes the plaintiff’s GCO application, consistent with usual practice. The defendant initially opposed the plaintiff’s application that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Byrnes v Origin Energy Ltd

Details

AGLC: Byrnes v Origin Energy Ltd [2025] VSC 504
Case: [2025] VSC 504
Decision Date: 20 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Byrnes v Origin Energy Ltd involved a dispute regarding the appropriateness of a group costs order (GCO) under the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). The plaintiff sought a GCO to recover costs as a percentage of any award or settlement recovered in a class action against Origin Energy Ltd. The central issue was whether the proposed rate of 35 per cent was appropriate or necessary, given the principles applicable to GCOs. The court had to assess whether the proposed percentage was fair and reasonable, considering factors such as the nature of the proceedings, the complexity of the case, and the resources required.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate percentage for the GCO. It considered the principles established in previous cases, which emphasised the need for a GCO to be fair and reasonable, and not to unduly burden the class members. The court also took into account the nature of the proceedings, which involved significant issues of public importance, and the resources required to bring the case to a successful conclusion. After careful consideration, the court found that a 30 per cent rate was more appropriate, given the specific circumstances of the case.

In light of the above, the court made a GCO at a rate of 30 per cent of any award or settlement recovered. This decision was based on a thorough analysis of the principles applicable to GCOs, the nature of the proceedings, and the resources required to bring the case to a successful conclusion. The court concluded that a 30 per cent rate was fair and reasonable, and would not unduly burden the class members. The decision provides valuable guidance for future cases involving GCOs, and underscores the importance of carefully considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate rate for a GCO.

Orders