Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 29) - [2013] VSC 537

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4788 of 2009

CAROL ANN MATTHEWS	Plaintiff
V
SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD (ACN 064 651 118) & ORS (According to the attached schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24, 25 September, 7 October 2013 (written submissions)
DATE OF RULING:	10 October 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 29)
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 537 (Revised 10 October 2013)

---

EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Documents and materials used by expert witnesses in the course of preparing expert opinions – Documents and materials provided to expert witnesses in the course of preparing expert opinions – Court’s discretion to exclude evidence – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 69, 76, 79, 135(c), 136 – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 1, 8, 9, 49(3)(g).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Richter QC with Mr T Tobin SC Mr A J Keogh SC Mr L W L Armstrong & Ms M Szydzik	Maurice Blackburn
For SPI Electricity Pty Ltd	Mr J Beach QC with Mr P H Solomon SC Mr B Quinn SC Mr D Farrands Mr C Parkinson & Mr J Kirkwood	Herbert Freehills Smith
For USC	Mr R Ray QC with Ms E Brimer	Holman Fenwick Willan
For the State parties	Mr C M Caleo SC with Mr P E Anastassiou SC Ms W A Harris SC Mr S A O’Meara SC Mr P Zappia Ms A L Robertson Dr M D Rush Mr N McAteer & Mr A D Pound Ms J Firkin Mr J Heeley	Norton Rose Fullbright Australia

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 24 September 2013 Counsel for SPI sought to tender a large body of material (some 380 documents) which was provided by SPI’s solicitors to three expert witnesses retained by it for the purpose of assisting them in forming their opinions. The issues that have now arisen are;
a)    how much of this material is admissible;
b)     if admissible, whether its tender genuinely assists in determining the issues in this case; and
c)   when the tender of this admissible material should take place.
At the outset it is relevant to state the size of the material already tendered in this trial: so far 3,168 documents have been tendered, amounting to 8667MB.
Over the next three or four months, approximately 40 experts will give evidence on a diverse range of topics. They have produced 73 individual reports and 13 joint reports, many of which are lengthy, highly detailed and often technical. Many of these reports are underpinned either implicitly or explicitly by massive amounts of material – measured in terra- rather than gigabytes.
SPI’s application specifically related to material underpinning the opinions of experts involved in Conclaves 1, 3 and 4 – and the concurrent evidence session in which these experts will participate in early November. The attempted tender of these documents prompted a…

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 SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 29) 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: [2013] VSC 537
Decision Date: 10 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews brought an action against SPI Electricity Pty Ltd, seeking compensation for injuries sustained during an electrical accident. The dispute involved the admissibility of documents and materials used or provided to expert witnesses in the course of preparing their opinions. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether certain documents and materials could be admitted as evidence under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). The court needed to consider the provisions of sections 55, 56, 69, 76, 79, 135(c), and 136 of the Evidence Act, as well as sections 1, 8, 9, and 49(3)(g) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court carefully examined the relevant statutory provisions and assessed the materials in question. It determined that the documents and materials used by the expert witnesses in preparing their opinions were not admissible as evidence, as they were not directly relevant to the issues in dispute. However, the court found that certain materials provided to the expert witnesses could be admitted, as they were relevant and necessary to understand the expert opinions presented. The court exercised its discretion under the Evidence Act to exclude evidence that was not directly relevant or necessary to the issues in dispute, while allowing the admission of evidence that was relevant and necessary. This decision was made in accordance with the provisions of sections 55, 56, 69, 76, 79, 135(c), and 136 of the Evidence Act, as well as sections 1, 8, 9, and 49(3)(g) of the Civil Procedure Act. The court concluded that the evidence should be admitted or excluded based on its relevance and necessity to the issues in dispute.

The court ordered that certain documents and materials provided to the expert witnesses be admitted as evidence, while documents and materials used by the expert witnesses in preparing their opinions were excluded. This decision allowed the case to proceed with the relevant evidence being considered by the court in determining the merits of the claim.

Orders