Matthews v Ausnet Pty Ltd (Ruling No 44) - [2016] VSC 732

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2009 04788

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

AND

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

AND

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

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 November 2016
DATE OF REASONS:	7 December 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v Ausnet Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 44)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 732 First revision (9 December 2016)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Group proceedings – Progress of the Settlement Distribution Scheme – Concerns of group members regarding the administration of the Scheme – Reports of Special Referee adopted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Scheme Administrator	Mr A Watson, the Scheme Administrator, appeared in person	Maurice Blackburn
Mr Dennis Spooner, Mr Norman Archibald and Ms Vicki Ruhr, Group Members, appeared on their own behalf

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

The Scheme Administrator anticipates that he will be able to make distributions to personal injury dependency group members by late December 2016 and to economic loss property damage group members by late March/early April 2017.

At the case management conference (CMC) on 30 November 2016, I made orders which will hopefully facilitate that distribution. In précis, those orders related to:

(a)the appropriate allowance to be made to the Scheme Administrator for the costs of the administration of the Settlement Distribution Scheme (SDS); and
(b)retention of approximately $22 million to meet any potential tax liability in relation to the interest earned on the settlement sum.[1]

[1]The orders (and previous orders made in the administration of the settlement) can be found on the Court’s website:

type="1">

This ruling explains the basis for making those orders and the progress of the administration of the SDS.

Case management conference on 30 November 2016

Before I go to the evidence adduced at the CMC, it is necessary to say something about the events in the weeks preceding 30 November 2016. The CMC was originally scheduled for 23 November 2016. Prior to that date, the Court received a number of submissions from group members concerned with the manner in which the SDS has been administered by the Scheme Administrator.[2] There were also submissions from group members supporting the manner in which the SDS has been administered and urging the Court to make orders which would facilitate the distribution of payments.
[2]A list of the material received by the Class Action Coordinator has been compiled and can be…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matthews v Ausnet Pty Ltd (Ruling No 44) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] VSC 732
Decision Date: 7 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews v Ausnet Pty Ltd (Ruling No 44) involved the Court hearing concerns from members of a group proceeding regarding the administration of a Settlement Distribution Scheme. The Court was tasked with determining the validity of these concerns and whether the reports of a Special Referee should be adopted.

The legal issues before the Court centred on the proper administration of the Settlement Distribution Scheme and whether there were any irregularities or breaches of the Court's orders that warranted further investigation or action. The group members argued that the administration of the Scheme was not being carried out in accordance with the Court's directions and that there were deficiencies in the process that could potentially affect their entitlements.

The Court carefully reviewed the reports of the Special Referee and considered the submissions made by the group members. It found that the Special Referee had conducted a thorough investigation and that the reports were comprehensive and well-reasoned. The Court was satisfied that the administration of the Scheme was in compliance with the Court's orders and that any issues raised by the group members were either minor or had been adequately addressed. Consequently, the Court decided to adopt the reports of the Special Referee.

The Court's decision was that the administration of the Settlement Distribution Scheme was satisfactory, and there were no grounds for further action regarding the concerns raised by the group members. The Court adopted the reports of the Special Referee, which detailed the findings and recommendations regarding the Scheme's administration. The Court's ruling provided clarity and assurance to all parties involved in the group proceeding.

Orders