Liesfield v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 2)
[2014] VSC 98
•20 MARCH 2014
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
S CI 2012 04538
| RODERIC ARTHUR LIESFIELD | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD (ACN 064 651 118) & ORS (According to the attached schedule) | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | DIXON J | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 FEBRUARY 2014 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 20 MARCH 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | LIESFIELD v SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD & ORS (RULING No 2) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VSC 98 | |
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – case management conference – major class action arising out of Black Saturday bushfires – assessment of critical path for trial preparation – completion of discovery – preparation of expert evidence for concurrent evidence at trial – disclosure of lay evidence – alternative dispute resolution – whether allocated trial date to be maintained – postponement of allocated trial date – implementation of the purposes of the Civil Procedure Act2010 (Vic) – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 7, 8, 9, 47, 48, 49 and 50.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Ms F McLeod SC with Mr A Fraatz | Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd |
| For the 1st Defendant | Mr PH Solomon SC with Mr P Wallis | Herbert Smith Freehills |
| For the 2nd Defendant | Ms E Brimer | Holman Fenwick Willan |
| For the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants | Mr P Anastassiou SC with Ms R Nelson | Norton Rose Fullbright Australia |
HIS HONOUR:
On Black Saturday in February 2009 proximate to the Murrindindi Mill, a fire ignited. The Murrindindi bushfire resulted in the death of 40 people and the destruction of more than 500 homes, including many situated in the town of Marysville. For a substantial time extending beyond the completion of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, the Murrindindi fire was thought to be the work of an arsonist.
The plaintiff filed his writ on 7 August 2012. The issues in the proceeding were not broadly defined until defences were filed to the plaintiff’s fourth amended statement of claim in August 2013. Since then, there have been further pleading amendments and yet more amendments are foreshadowed.
The claim is brought pursuant to the group proceeding provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and the group members are those who suffered injury, property damage or economic loss in the Murrindindi fire. The defendants to the claim are the same as those defending the class action in respect of the Kilmore East-Kinglake Black Saturday bushfire claim.
On 27 November 2013, the management of the proceeding was referred to me as the trial judge. At the first case management conference on 11 December 2013, I fixed the proceeding for trial to commence on 6 October 2014. The parties were on notice of an October 2014 trial date from a case management conference in July 2013. At this stage, no party has ventured an estimate of the hearing time likely to be required to complete the trial. It seems to be generally agreed that the proceeding is of similar scale and scope to the Kilmore East-Kinglake proceeding. The trial of that proceeding commenced in March 2013 and it is anticipated that the trial judge will reserve his decision in June 2014.
Substantive case management directions for discovery were given by J Forrest J in November 2013.[1] In summary, those directions allow until 1 May 2014 for the completion of discovery and inspection in this proceeding.
[1]Liesfield v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 1) [2013] VSC 634.
At the case management conference on 28 February 2014, the parties presented consent directions that provided for a trial date of 16 March 2015, despite my observations about the importance of working to the 6 October 2014 trial date when announcing the trial date at the case management conference on 11 December 2013. Recognising that an implied application to vacate the trial date was emerging in case management, I invited the parties to address written submission and any evidence by affidavit that was considered appropriate to address the question of whether the trial date should be postponed or some specific aspect of the proceeding should be scheduled to commence on, or about, the original trial date.
An affidavit sworn by Martin Hyde, of the plaintiff’s solicitors, deposes that all parties are in agreement that the trial date should be vacated and a new trial date set for March 2015, although there is not complete agreement about the proposed trial date. Mr Hyde deposes that the plaintiff’s legal team is adequately resourced and that the reason for the deferral of the trial date is that key pre-trial steps are not amenable to being carried out concurrently. There is not enough time available for the relevant steps to be adequately completed sequentially before 6 October 2014. All of the parties seek to draw on their experience in the Kilmore East-Kinglake proceeding. Mr Hyde deposes that the significant trial preparation steps are:
(a)class closure and co-operation between the parties as regards quantification of losses;
(b) production and review of discovered documents;
(c) exchange of preliminary lists of proposed lay witnesses;
(d) filing and service of experts’ reports;
(e) filing and service of experts’ reports in reply;
(f) finalisation of lists of proposed lay witnesses;
(g)experts to meet in conclave and produce joint conclave reports; and
(h) mediation.
The plaintiff contends that the steps set out in paragraphs (b) to (h) above are best performed sequentially.
I do not wholly accept this proposition. There is a need for sequential preparation in relation to many, but not all, of the trial preparation steps. I agree with Mr Hyde that issues surrounding class closure is a separate issue with limited impact on other trial preparation tasks, save for alternative dispute resolution. However, in my view, alternative dispute resolution need not be sequentially scheduled and is, in substance, a concurrent rather than a sequential task. That is not to say that there are not critical points beyond which alternative dispute resolution processes cannot proceed until informed by trial preparation. I shall return to this issue.
Drawing on his experience in the Kilmore East-Kinglake proceeding, Mr Hyde anticipates further interlocutory disputes about discovery, in particular challenges to privilege claims over discovered documents. On that subject, I will make two preliminary observations. First, only time will tell whether interlocutory applications concerning inspection of documents will play any material role in proper preparation for, or the determination of, the proceeding. There is a tendency, which must be avoided, for legal teams in large complex proceedings to focus on the minutiae being kicked up in the dust of the battle and to lose focus on the war. If that situation were to develop, failure to observe one or more of the overarching obligations owed by the parties and their legal advisers may amount to breach of the paramount duty to the court to further the administration of justice in relation to any interlocutory application or interlocutory proceeding.
It is particularly important in this proceeding that the court is assisted by proper discharge of overarching obligations by the parties and their advisers, including their experts. I draw attention, without intending any limitation, to two obligations. Under s 20 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010, a person to whom the overarching obligations apply must cooperate with the parties to a civil proceeding and the court in connection with the conduct of that proceeding. Under s 23 of the Act, if a person to whom the overarching obligations apply cannot resolve a dispute wholly by agreement, the person must use reasonable endeavours to resolve by agreement any issues in dispute which can be resolved in that way, and narrow the scope of the remaining issues in dispute.
Second, given the similarity in parties and issues between the two class actions, previous rulings in the Kilmore East-Kinglake proceeding should provide substantial guidance to the parties when discharging their obligations to other parties to the proceeding and to the court to co-operate, to avoid undue delay and expense through taking unnecessary steps in connection with any claim in the proceeding, or to narrow the scope of the issues in dispute in the proceeding.
That said, I accept that completing discovery and inspection will be a major milestone on which subsequent trial preparation steps depend and 1 May 2014 is an important date on the trial preparation critical path. I am persuaded that, with some exceptions, the parties must concentrate their efforts on completing discovery and inspection by that date before the preparation of the lay and expert evidence can sensibly be undertaken in a cost-effective way.
Alternative dispute resolution in large class actions carries particular problems, which in large part flow from the limited obligations of the representative plaintiff in respect of discovery and issues of quantum of loss, and the desire of the defendants to resolve their whole liability. Alternative dispute resolution has its own critical path which intersects with trial preparation at key milestones but need not be wholly sequential within a trial preparation framework. For example, while the identification of the issues in dispute between the parties is also on the critical path for alternative dispute resolution, much can be done to advance alternative dispute resolution before a later critical step intersects with trial preparation. That later critical step in this case is the disclosure of expert evidence. For effective alternative dispute resolution, the parties must be able to form a proper appreciation of their reward or risk profile in the proceeding and that requires a limited understanding of the evidence that will be adduced at the trial. In particular, given the importance of expert evidence in a number of disciplines in the resolution of this proceeding, I am satisfied that effective alternative dispute resolution cannot be completed until after the disclosure of expert reports.
Ultimately, it may be the case that effective alternative dispute resolution will also be assisted by the joint reports that are the product of expert conclaves, but there is nothing in the process of mediation, properly practised, that requires that all parties have an appreciation of the detail of all of the evidence to be led at the trial before they are in a position to negotiate an acceptable compromise.
That said, it is beyond argument that the just, efficient, timely and cost effective resolution of this proceeding may be achieved through appropriate alternative dispute resolution processes. Permitting a proper opportunity for informed alternative dispute resolution has the prospect of achieving most of the objective specified in s 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. I consider that alternative dispute resolution must be properly programmed into the trial preparation program, but not as a wholly sequential task. I expect that alternative dispute resolution will be an ongoing concurrent task for some months and that expectation is reflected in the directions I will make. There is no sufficient reason for the trial to be unduly delayed by alternative dispute resolution. Very substantial resources are being allocated to this proceeding by both the court and by the parties to the dispute. These resources need to be applied to the critical tasks without undue distraction. Ultimately, the overarching purpose of facilitating the just, efficient, timely and cost effective resolution of this dispute might only be achieved by the determination of the proceeding by the court. That appears to be the fate of the parties to the Kilmore East – Kinglake proceeding, and that prospect requires an emphasis on the court’s primary function - to determine proceedings by judgment.
One of those resources is time. The events occurred over 5 years ago. Those events, generally, have been investigated by a Royal Commission and in several class actions that have been resolved or are presently in trial. I accept that each fire raises different issues, this fire was not directly investigated in the Royal Commission, and that there is an explanation for the delay in commencing this proceeding. However, how the the just, efficient, timely and cost effective resolution of this dispute may be achieved, to borrow a phrase from counsel, can be ‘tutored by the Kilmore experience’ and the experience in other Black Saturday bushfire proceedings. Many of the issues that have been resolved by rulings, or sometimes by agreement, in other proceedings will inform a co-operative approach to narrowing the issues to be determined in this proceeding, albeit issues that are different or that arise in another context.
Bearing all these factors in mind, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to vacate the trial date fixed for 6 October 2014 and to set a new date.
I am unpersuaded that it is necessary to delay the commencement of the trial until the middle of March 2015. Why that is so can be demonstrated by a rudimentary form of critical path analysis, to which I will shortly return. I am satisfied that with appropriate resources applied by the parties to trial preparation, the trial should be ready to commence at the beginning of February 2015.
It has been asserted that the parties are applying adequate resources to trial preparation. This contention has not been tested by the court. No occasion has arisen for that exercise to be undertaken. Section 47(1) of the Act provides that -
Without limiting any other power of a court, for the purposes of ensuring that a civil proceeding is managed and conducted in accordance with the overarching purpose, the court may give any direction or make any order it considers appropriate, including any directions given or orders made—
(a) in the interests of the administration of justice; or
(b) in the public interest.
Active case management may involve directions to ensure that the civil proceeding is conducted promptly and efficiently, encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceeding and considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step in a civil proceeding justify the cost of taking it. Cost can be measured in terms of both expense and time. Section 50 of the Act permits the court to make an order directing a legal practitioner acting for a party, to prepare a memorandum setting out the estimated length of the trial and the estimated costs and disbursements in relation to the trial, and to give the memorandum to the court. The court’s powers in relation to case management are not limited by the Act.[2]
[2]See s 53 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic).
I am satisfied that should it become necessary to do so, the court can inquire into whether any non-compliance with the trial preparation directions that I propose to make arises out of insufficient resourcing by a party, or his or its funders, of its legal or expert advisers, or out of a breach of an overarching obligation.
At the case management conference, two alternatives for an earlier start to the trial were canvased. The plaintiff could commence his case, either on 6 October or some later date in 2014, with his lay evidence. Given the circumstances of Black Saturday, plainly, giving evidence will be a difficult and emotional task for the plaintiff, group members and other witnesses who may be called for the plaintiff. In my view, it is neither just nor in the public interest that the victims of Black Saturday should be required to give their evidence and be cross-examined before a reasonable opportunity for effective alternative dispute resolution has passed. On my assessment of the needs of trial preparation, that will not occur before the end of November 2014. There were other reasons advanced in submissions why it will be preferable to delay the plaintiff’s lay evidence beyond 6 October 2014 that I need not dwell upon.
The alternative course might be to schedule an issue or issues to commence on the original date or some other date in 2014. Some submissions have been put to the court about the undesirability of determining a preliminary question. I agree that a preliminary question under O. 47.04 of the Rules will not be an appropriate course. I had in mind an alternative course available under s 49 of the Act – giving directions with respect to the order in which questions of fact are to be tried. I invited submissions from the parties upon whether the trial could commence dealing with discrete issues. I was seeking to ascertain whether there were discrete issues in the case upon which evidence could conveniently be taken as an exercise in sequencing the order in which the evidence relating to issues in the proceeding would be taken. The parties identified what is referred to as the ‘warnings case’ as a candidate. With the benefit of written submissions received since the case management conference, I am satisfied that it is not an appropriate course to commence the proceeding taking evidence in relation to the warnings case.
Having considered the parties’ submissions on these issues, I am satisfied that neither alternative is an appropriate course to adopt.
On the basis of the submissions put during the case management conference and the subsequent written submissions, I am satisfied that reasonably achievable milestones for the preparation of this proceeding for trial can be set out. The critical path that I am adopting separates out group membership issues and, in part, alternative dispute resolution. I have also built in the desire of the parties for sequential exchange of information as an alternative to requiring further particulars.
(a)
4 April 2014
Pleadings and identifying issues in dispute
(b)
31 March 2014
eProtocols
(c)
1 May 2014
Discovery and inspection completed
(d)
31 May 2014
Group (and representative) member (witness) issues
(e)
31 May 2014
Administrative arrangements for alternative dispute resolution completed
(f)
27 June 2014
Exchange of expert details, questions and briefing materials
(g)
1 August 2014
Delivery of expert reports (round 1)
(h)
1 August 2014
Lay witness disclosure
(i)
1 August 2014
Mediation commences
(j)
26 September 2014
Delivery of expert reports (round 2)
(k)
10 October 2014
Non-party discovery and notices to admit completed
(l)
17 October 2014
Administrative arrangements for expert conclaves completed
(m)
21 November 2014
Completion of expert conclaves and service of joint reports
(n)
21 November 2014
Chronologies and lists of documents
(o)
30 November 2014
Completion of alternative dispute resolution
(p)
5 December 2014
Final pre-trial directions and settling of agenda for trial
(q)
5 December 2014
Revised lay witness disclosure
(r)
3 February 2015
Trial commences
The first significant milestone is the substantial completion of the pleadings and identification of the issues involved in the proceeding. Section 47(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act emphasises the importance in case management of early identification of the issues involved in the proceeding. That task is yet to be completed by the parties and although there are further amendments to the pleadings for which leave has been granted, there is no reason why identification of the issues in the proceeding cannot be completed in the near future.
The next major milestone is the completion of discovery and inspection. By force of directions prior to my assumption of the management of this proceeding, the date for this milestone is 1 May 2014. Subject to the prospect of further interlocutory applications concerning discovery or inspection about which I have already made some comments, the date for this milestone is accepted as appropriate by the parties. On the critical path, I accept that completion of discovery is desirable before finalisation of briefs to experts.
Expert evidence looms as a substantial component of trial preparation of great importance not only in the resolution of the issues to be determined at trial but also in alternative dispute resolution. Disclosure of expert evidence is the third major milestone. Discussions at case management conferences have identified the following broad topics in which contested expert evidence is anticipated by the parties:
(a) mechanical and electrical engineering;
(b) metallurgy;
(c) fire element and mathematical modelling, including line design;
(d) fire cause investigation and fire ignition;
(e) asset inspection, maintenance and training;
(f) planned or prescribed burning, including ecology;
(g) hypothetical fire progression, including analysis of fire path;
(h) loss assessment, including medical evidence.
Expert evidence will also be called on other issues that may not be contested by an opposing expert. Such issues include meteorology, bushfire urban design interface issues and warnings. Issues will also arise about the extent to which the work of some experts will inform the work of others. For example, electrical engineering experts may be informed by the work of metallurgy experts. A related issue concerns the need for examination and testing of real evidence, such as the failed conductor.
I pause to note at this point that an issue has arisen about the lack of access to part of the failed conductor. I was informed that one end of the conductor at the point of failure was cut away prior to the conductor being rejoined as part of its repair. That cut-away piece of conductor, plainly of some importance to the experts in their investigations, cannot presently be located. The parties are awaiting information from SPI about its knowledge of the whereabouts of the piece of conductor and I have directed that SPI’s response be provided expeditiously.
Several issues that were addressed at the case management conference will be reflected in the trial preparation directions that I will make. I have accepted that it is appropriate to stagger the exchange of expert reports on certain topics. Second, at the trial of the proceeding, expert evidence will be taken in concurrent evidence sessions and that evidence will be prepared according to the following procedure.
Tutored by the Kilmore East-Kinglake proceeding, it seems that care must be taken over the number of experts that may be called and about how those expert are prepared for concurrent evidence. I will say a little about how I approach preparation of expert evidence, commencing with the relevant provision of the Act.
65HCourt may give directions in relation to expert evidence
(1)A court may give any directions it considers appropriate in relation to expert evidence in a proceeding.
(2)A direction under subsection (1) may include, but is not limited to—
(a)the preparation of an expert's report;
(b)the time for service of an expert's report;
(c)limiting expert evidence to specified issues;
(d)providing that expert evidence may not be adduced on specified issues;
(e)limiting the number of expert witnesses who may be called to give evidence on a specified issue;
(f)providing for the appointment of—
(i)single joint experts; or
(ii)court appointed experts;
(g)any other direction that may assist an expert witness in the exercise of his or her functions as an expert witness in the proceeding.
(3)A direction under subsection (1) may be given at any time in a proceeding.
Initially, these directions address preparation of expert reports, the issues under ss (2)(i) & (ii), and, on completion of the first phase, the information provided should enable an assessment of other issues identified in ss (2) - precisely how many experts will be permitted, whether the appointment of a single joint expert or court-appointed experts is desirable or appropriate, and whether expert evidence should be limited. Further, an assessment can be made about how the expert conclaves and concurrent evidence sessions will operate and whether the expert evidence is properly targeted at the issues to be resolved by the proceeding. In this way, the object of the trial preparation directions will be to ensure that the court has control over the expert evidence that is adduced and that expert evidence is restricted to the evidence that is reasonably required to resolve the proceeding. These objectives are identified to make clear the importance, in achieving the new trial date, of early identification of issues in respect of the expert evidence.
To facilitate preparation of expert evidence for trial, the parties must first identify the experts that they propose to call. This procedure is staggered. In the first instance each party will identify experts by name, professional address and area of expertise, and each party will also provide to other parties:
(a) a statement of the qualifications and experience of the expert;
(b) a statement of the source material with which that expert is to be briefed;
(c)a statement of all assumptions which that expert is being asked to make; and
(d) a list of the questions which that expert is being asked to answer.
Once this information is exchanged, the parties are required to consider whether any objection is being taken to:
(a) the retainer of the nominated expert;
(b)the relevance, nature or extent of any question or issue being submitted to the expert;
(c)the relevance, nature or extent of the material being submitted to the expert, including whether other material ought to be submitted to that expert; and
(d) the expertise of the expert to address the questions or issues submitted.
In the first instance, the purpose of this procedure is to ensure that issues concerning expertise, instruction, assumption and issues are resolved between the parties before the experts complete their reports. I accept that some preliminary reports have been prepared by some experts but prefer, without making a specific direction about it, that expert reports not be commissioned until the first phase of the process is completed. Second, I would expect that this process will ensure that the experts appropriately engage on the issues that are properly in dispute in the proceeding from a commonly shared foundation in the documents, assumptions of fact and expected evidence to be led at trial. Although the precise detail of relevant evidence at trial may not necessarily be apparent, the parties can ensure that opposing experts are invited to comment on assumptions of fact which that party’s expert is being invited to make, in anticipation of the evidence to be led at trial. Issues arising during this process will be resolved at case management conferences.
The next step in this procedure is for experts to be briefed and to produce their reports. When reports are served, parties will be expected to file and serve a list of the documents which that expert will approve or refer to and a copy of all underlying calculations and data that underpin the opinions expressed by the expert. Further, I am directing that any objections as to the admissibility of the whole or any part of an expert report must be taken before that expert participates in an expert conclave and signs a joint report, unless leave is later granted. Parties may be found to have waived any entitlement to object to the admissibility of an expert opinion by acquiescing in the process of a conclave and joint report on the basis of an expert report in a particular form.
I pause to note that the exchange of experts’ reports is a significant milestone, not just in the preparation path for trial but also in the preparation path for alternative dispute resolution. In a perfect world of unlimited resources, it might be desirable for the parties to also have the benefit of joint reports following the expert conclave in alternative dispute resolution.[3] I am satisfied that a mediation, properly conducted, can substantially advance negotiations on the basis of exchanged expert reports. It is the former, rather than the latter milestone – exchange of expert reports - that defines this intersection between the critical paths of alternative dispute resolution and trial preparation The directions provide for alternative dispute resolution to be conducted in the same time frame as that for expert conclaves and joint reports but to not conclude until after joint reports are available. I envisage that preparation of the expert evidence is likely to be a significant topic and remaining case management conferences as there is much to be regulated.
[3]I am mindful of the views expressed by J Forrest J in Matthews v SPI Electricity and SPI Electricity Pty Ltd v Utility Services Corporation Ltd (Ruling No 4) [2011] VSC 613 (15 December 2011), in the circumstances that prevailed in case management in that proceeding.
The final stage in the process of preparing expert evidence is for conclaves to be conducted and joint reports to be prepared. The trial directions provide for the administrative arrangements for conclaves to be in place shortly after the final exchange of reports. The negotiation of administrative arrangements will need to commence at an earlier point in time to enable that deadline to be met.
There are many aspects of trial preparation that will involve commencing the process well before the milestone deadline. Any party seeking an indulgence in respect of a deadline should seek to persuade the court that its preparation was not commenced at the last minute. Slippage is not expected and has not been allowed for. Any application to vary or extend a deadline should be made as the earliest opportunity. Further, the parties are expected to inform other parties if unavoidable delay is anticipated and to use their best endeavours, in the first instance, to agree appropriate adjustments to deadlines that will achieve the trial date.[4]
[4]Compare the observations of Davies J in Haron v Slea Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] VSC 169 (13 March 2013) and of the Court of Appeal in Eaton v ISS Catering Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 361 at [44]-[55] (12 December 2013).
A significant unresolved issue is the mode of trial by which this proceeding is to be resolved. The plaintiff seeks a trial by jury. Whether that mode of trial is appropriate can be determined once the scope of the expert evidence, and the extent of conflict or disagreement amongst the experts, is revealed. Further, the mode of trial may be relevant in alternative dispute resolution. The trial preparation directions provide for applications on that question to be dealt with at the case management conference on 17 October 2014. The possibility of a jury trial is a further reason for permitting the trial to commence in 2015 on all issues.
I have attempted to schedule case management conferences to facilitate discussion about and resolution of contentious issues that will arise in performing the trial preparation tasks required by the directions. Consistent with the overarching obligation under the Civil Procedure Act, the parties and their legal representatives are encouraged to actively confer and use reasonable endeavours to resolve any issues in dispute or narrow the scope of the remaining issues to be resolved by the court. Where unexpected problems, or conflict between the parties, arise, the parties are encouraged to bring the proceeding back to case management expeditiously to avoid unnecessary delay and any blowout in the timetable established by these directions. For that purpose, the parties are encouraged to exercise liberty to apply between the dates scheduled for case management conferences.
---
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
S CI 2012 04538
BETWEEN
| RODERIC LIESFIELD | Plaintiff |
| And | |
| SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD (ACN 064 651 118) | First Defendant |
| ACN 060 674 580 PTY LTD (ACN 060 674 580) | Second Defendant |
| SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT | Third Defendant |
| COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY | Fourth Defendant |
| STATE OF VICTORIA | Fifth Defendant |
| -AND- SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD (ACN 064 651 118) | Plaintiff by Counterclaim |
| ACN 060 674 580 PTY LTD (ACN 060 674 580) | First Defendant by Counterclaim |
| SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT | Second Defendant by Counterclaim |
| COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY | Third Defendant by Counterclaim |
| STATE OF VICTORIA | Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim |
| RODERIC LIESFIELD | Fifth Defendant by Counterclaim |
0
4
0