Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 32) - [2013] VSC 630

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 RULING:	18 November 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 32)
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 630

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Scope of role of assessors appointed to assist the Court – Transparency of communications between assessors and the Court – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 7, 9, 65H, 65F, 65M; Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 77.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Concurrent expert evidence sessions – Identification of matters in dispute prior to concurrent evidence session – Provision of questions to experts.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Concurrent expert evidence sessions – Restriction on communications between experts and the parties and/or the parties’ solicitors during the concurrent evidence session.

---

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 & Mr L Stanistreet	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 & Mr L Brown	Norton Rose Fullbright Australia

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The factual evidence in Mrs Matthews’ case against SPI has concluded[1] and a number of concurrent evidence sessions are scheduled for November and December 2013 and March 2014.
[1]Subject to the tender of a small number of documents.
On Monday 18 November 2013, 10 experts[2] commenced the first of the concurrent evidence sessions, dealing with issues relevant to the cause(s) of the failure of the Valley Span conductor on Black Saturday.
[2]The experts have met in a number of conclaves identified by subject-matter. On the question of the conductor break there have been three conclaves: conclaves 1, 3 and 4.
This ruling addresses three matters:
(a)   the provision of questions to the conclave 1, 3 and 4 experts;
(b)   a limitation on communications between the conclave 1, 3 and 4 experts and the parties and their solicitors during their concurrent evidence session; and
(c)    the scope of the role to be played by the two assessors that have been appointed to assist the court in relation to the expert evidence of conclaves 1, 3 and 4.

Background

In mid-2012, I provided a ruling concerning the organisation of the experts and grouped them…

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 32) 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 630
Decision Date: 18 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 32) involved the plaintiff, Matthews, who was bringing a claim against SPI Electricity Pty Ltd in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute pertained to the procedural aspects of expert evidence and the role of assessors appointed to assist the Court, particularly in relation to concurrent expert evidence sessions. The court was required to address several legal issues concerning the scope of the assessors’ roles, the transparency of communications between the assessors and the Court, and the procedural requirements for expert evidence sessions.

The court had to determine the extent of the assessors' role in assisting the Court, particularly in relation to the transparency of their communications with the Court and the potential impact on the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to consider the procedural requirements for concurrent expert evidence sessions, including the identification of matters in dispute prior to the session and the provision of questions to the experts. The court also examined whether there should be restrictions on communications between experts and the parties or their solicitors during the concurrent evidence session.

The court found that assessors appointed to assist the Court should have a limited role in relation to the transparency of their communications with the Court. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that the assessors' role does not compromise the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings. Regarding the concurrent expert evidence sessions, the court held that it is essential to identify the matters in dispute prior to the session and to provide questions to the experts to ensure that the session is focused and productive. The court also concluded that there should be restrictions on communications between experts and the parties or their solicitors during the concurrent evidence session to prevent any potential bias or influence on the expert's evidence.

The court made orders to the effect that assessors should maintain a level of transparency in their communications with the Court, but the extent of this transparency should be limited to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. Furthermore, the court ordered that the parties should identify matters in dispute prior to the concurrent expert evidence session and provide questions to the experts. Lastly, the court ordered that there should be restrictions on communications between experts and the parties or their solicitors during the concurrent evidence session to prevent any potential bias or influence on the expert's evidence.

Orders