Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2009 04788

BETWEEN

CAROL ANN MATTHEWS	Plaintiff
and
AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD (formerly SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD) (ACN 064 651 118) and others according to the Schedule	Defendants

AND BETWEEN

AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD (formerly SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD) (ACN 064 651 118)	Plaintiff by Counterclaim
and
ACN 060 674 580 PTY LTD and others according to the Schedule	Defendants by Counterclaim

AND BETWEEN

ACN 060 674 580 PTY LTD	Plaintiff by UAM Counterclaim
and
AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD (formerly SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD) (ACN 064 651 118) and others according to the Schedule	Defendants by UAM Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 and 25 November 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 December 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 663

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for approval of settlement of group proceeding – Supreme Court Act 1986, s 33V, pt 4A – Settlement of proceeding after trial but prior to delivery of judgment – Whether terms of settlement fair and reasonable – Whether settlement distribution scheme fair and reasonable – Whether claim for legal fees and disbursements reasonable – ‘Black Saturday’ bushfire near Kilmore East Kinglake – Settlement approved.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Richter QC with Mr L W L Armstrong and Ms M Szydzik	Maurice Blackburn
For the Third to Fifth Defendants	Mr M D Rush with Ms A Robertson	Norton Rose Fulbright
For the Objector (Mr Charles Exton)	Mr G Conlan	Law 554 Solicitors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Procedural context.............................................................................................................................. 7

The Court’s approach...................................................................................................................... 11

The settlement as between the parties......................................................................................... 15

Quantum...................................................................................................................................... 15

Primary risk................................................................................................................................. 18

The case against SPI.................................................................................................................... 21

The fire.......................................................................................................................................... 23

Targeted dampers (retro-fitting)............................................................................................... 53

Targeted replacement................................................................................................................. 58

The inspection case..................................................................................................................... 62

The OCR (oil-operated circuit recloser) case........................................................................... 66

Nuisance....................................................................................................................................... 70

The claim against UAM — negligent inspection.................................................................... 72

Claims against the State parties — planned burning by DSE.............................................. 76

Claims against the State parties — warnings.......................................................................... 81

Conclusion as to primary risk................................................................................................... 87

Consequential risks..................................................................................................................... 87

Conclusions as to risk................................................................................................................. 89

Other advantages offered by the settlement........................................................................... 90

Finalisation......................................................................................................................... 90

Personal stress, anxiety and suffering............................................................................ 92

Advancement of payment................................................................................................ 93

Containment of costs......................................................................................................... 93

Counsel’s opinion....................................................................................................................... 94

The settlement as between group members............................................................................... 95

The deed of settlement............................................................................................................... 95

The SDS......................................................................................................................................... 96

Costs of the proceeding.................................................................................................... 99

Costs agreements................................................................................................ 104

Methodology of Ms Dealehr............................................................................. 105

Professional fees................................................................................................. 106

Disbursements.................................................................................................... 107

Methodology of Mr Mazzeo............................................................................. 108

Disbursements.................................................................................................... 110

Are the costs sought by Maurice Blackburn fair and reasonable?.............. 111

The split between classes of claimants......................................................................... 113

Priority as between insured and insurer...................................................................... 114

Future administration costs..................................................................................................... 116

Procedural provisions.............................................................................................................. 118

ELPD assessment principles and multipliers....................................................................... 119

Trial participation..................................................................................................................... 122

The objections................................................................................................................................. 122

Confidentiality............................................................................................................................... 124

Orders............................................................................................................................................... 127

ANNEXURE A................................................................................................................................ 128

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. At 11:45 am on 7 February 2009,…