Matthews v AusNet Pty Ltd (Ruling No 45) - [2017] VSC 187

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 March 2017
DATE OF REASONS:	11 April 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v AusNet Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 45)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 187

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case Management Conference – Progress of the Settlement Distribution Scheme – Declaration made that administration costs are reasonable – Treatment of tax liability of the interest incurred – Concern by group members regarding tax treatment of interest – Quarantining of $750,000 for contingency risks – Court declines to intervene in outcomes of individual assessments – Application for further redaction category granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Scheme Administrator	Mr A Watson, the Scheme Administrator, appeared in person	Maurice Blackburn
Group Members	Ms Carol Matthews Ms Vicki Ruhr
Mr Gary Angus

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

This is the sixth ruling concerning the supervision of the administration of the Settlement Distribution Scheme (SDS) approved by Osborn JA on 23 December 2014.[1]
[1]See Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No.40) [2015] VSC 131; Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No.41) [2016] VSC 171 (rulings); Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 663 (approval).

Save where necessary, I do not propose in the course of this ruling to re-state matters I have covered in rulings 40,[2] 41,[3] 42,[4] 43,[5] and 44,[6] nor the contents of the SDS, which can be inspected on the Court’s website.
[2][2015] VSC 131.
[3][2016] VSC 171.
[4][2016] VSC 394.
[5][2016] VSC 583.
[6][2016] VSC 732.

At the case management conference on 30 March 2017, Mr Andrew Watson, the Scheme Administrator, advised the Court as to progress made in relation to the processing of both I-D and ELPD claims.

This ruling concerns eight matters arising out of that hearing:

(a) the progress of the assessment of claims pursuant to the SDS to date;

(b) the adoption of the Special Referee’s report and the approval of the Scheme Administrator’s costs;

(c) an update as to the status of the tax liability on the interest incurred;

(d) the quarantining of $750,000 as a contingency fund;

(e) whether there should be a donation to charity for…

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 45) 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: [2017] VSC 187
Decision Date: 11 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews v AusNet Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding the administration and distribution of a settlement fund. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue was the reasonableness of administrative costs, the treatment of tax liability for accrued interest, and the allocation of funds for potential risks. Additionally, the court considered the request for redaction of certain information in the proceedings.

The legal issues centred on whether the administrative costs were justified, the appropriate handling of tax liabilities on accrued interest, and the prudence of setting aside a specific amount for contingency risks. The court was also required to determine whether it should intervene in the individual tax assessments of the group members. Furthermore, the application for additional redaction of sensitive information in the case was evaluated.

The court ruled that the administration costs were reasonable and declined to interfere with the individual tax assessments of the group members. The court also approved the quarantine of $750,000 to address potential contingency risks. The court recognised the concerns of the group members regarding the tax treatment of accrued interest but found that these issues were best addressed through individual assessments rather than court intervention. Finally, the court granted the application for an additional redaction category, ensuring the protection of sensitive information.

In conclusion, the court's decision addressed the key issues of administrative costs, tax liability treatment, contingency funds allocation, and redaction of sensitive information. The court's ruling upheld the settlement distribution scheme while ensuring transparency and protection of group members' interests.

Orders