Matthews v Ausnet (Ruling No.42) - [2016] VSC 394

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:	21 June 2016
DATE OF REASONS:	15 July 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v Ausnet (Ruling No.42)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 394

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management conference – Progress of the Settlement Distribution Scheme – Amendment of the Settlement Distribution Scheme – Court declines to intervene in relation to amendment for interim distributions – Allowance for administration costs – Declaration made that administration costs are reasonable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Scheme Administrator	Mr A Watson, the Scheme Administrator, appeared in person	Maurice Blackburn
No appearance by the other parties
Ms V Ruhr and Mr D Spooner, Group Members, appeared with the leave of the Court

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is the third 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) and Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 663 (approval).

Save where necessary, I do not propose to repeat what was said in either of the previous two rulings, nor the contents of the SDS, which can be inspected on the Court website.

This ruling concerns:

(a) the progress of the administration of the SDS to date;

(b) whether there should be any consideration of an interim distribution of the settlement funds;

(c) the appropriate allowances to be made to the Scheme Administrator, Mr Watson, for administration costs; and

(d) other minor procedural matters.

General observations

At the commencement of the hearing of the application I made the following statement, which I now repeat:

The purpose of this case conference and previous case conferences is to ensure that the SDS is being administered in accordance with its terms as approved by Justice of Appeal Osborn in December 2014. It is not open to any person, the plaintiff, Mrs Matthews, the defendants, or group members to now challenge or debate the terms of the SDS. All parties, including group members, were given the opportunity between July and December 2014 to make submissions to the Court about the terms of…

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 Matthews v Ausnet (Ruling No.42)

Details

AGLC: Matthews v Ausnet (Ruling No.42) [2016] VSC 394
Case: [2016] VSC 394
Decision Date: 15 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matthews v Ausnet (Ruling No. 42) involved the applicants, who were creditors of Ausnet Services, and the respondent, Ausnet Services. The dispute centred on the Settlement Distribution Scheme (the Scheme) which was approved by the Court, and the applicants sought clarification and intervention regarding its amendment for interim distributions. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the amendment to the Scheme for interim distributions should be approved, and whether the allowance for administration costs was reasonable. The applicants argued that the amendment to the Scheme should not proceed without further scrutiny and that the administration costs were excessive.

The court declined to intervene in the amendment of the Settlement Distribution Scheme for interim distributions, noting that the amendment was consistent with the original scheme and did not prejudice the applicants. The court found that the administration costs were reasonable and necessary, and thus, approved the allowance. The court made a declaration that the administration costs were reasonable.

The final orders included the approval of the amendment to the Settlement Distribution Scheme for interim distributions and the allowance of administration costs, with the court's declaration that the administration costs were reasonable.

Orders