Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 5) - [2012] VSC 66

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)	Defendant

SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD (ACN 064 651 118)	Plaintiff by counterclaim
v
UTILITY SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 060 674 580) & ORS	Defendants by counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 February 2012
DATE OF RULING:	9 March 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity and SPI Electricity Pty Ltd v Utility Services Corporation Ltd (Ruling No 5)
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 66

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Class action – Chapter 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) – Use of sample group members process at trial – Liability for costs of sample group members – Whether the quantum of sample group members claims should be determined at trial.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Tobin SC Mr L Armstrong	Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd
For SPI Electricity Pty Ltd	Mr B Quinn	Freehills
For USC	Mr R Ray QC Ms E Brimer	Holman Fenwick Willan
For the State parties	Mr C Caleo SC Mr M Rush	Norton Rose

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The trial of this very large class action arising out of the Kilmore East Black Saturday bushfire is now ten months away.

Two issues have arisen concerning the role of sample group members (whose function I shall explain in a moment). First, whether the Court should, at trial, assess each of their damages claims and second, whether there should be a declaration at this point in time as to their potential liability for costs in the event that their claims fail.

The use of sample group members in a class action trial

One of the purposes of a claim conducted under the group proceeding provisions of Part IVA of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic)[1] is for as many common issues as is practicable to be resolved at the one hearing, thus obviating the necessity for separate trials of the group members’ claims. In Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd & Anor v Esso Australia Pty Ltd & Ors,[2] Gillard J said:

The object of a group proceeding procedure is to enable a proceeding to be brought by a substantial number of victims of an alleged wrong committed by the same wrongdoer, thereby pooling resources and ensuring the Court's resources are used efficiently and expeditiously. It has been recognised that an individual may be deterred from taking on a large financially secure party and the group proceeding legislation is aimed at enabling individuals to band together to bring a proceeding. The guiding principle of Part 4A, is justice. See s.33ZF.
In my opinion, it is important that the Court conducts group proceeding litigation in a practical manner and ensures that as many questions of law and fact having a degree of commonality are decided. Once the group proceeding is completed and if an…

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 5) 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: [2012] VSC 66
Decision Date: 9 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews and other plaintiffs brought a proceeding against SPI Electricity Pty Ltd in the County Court of Victoria, seeking damages for the electricity blackout in Melbourne in 2008. The case was brought as a class action under Chapter 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). SPI Electricity contested the proceeding, arguing that the class action was not appropriate for the case. The court was required to decide on several issues, including whether the use of a sample group members process at trial was permissible, and whether the quantum of the sample group members' claims should be determined at trial.

The court held that the use of a sample group members process at trial was permissible, and that the quantum of the sample group members' claims should not be determined at trial. The court found that the sample group members process was an appropriate method to manage the class action, as it allowed for the efficient and fair resolution of the proceeding. The court also held that determining the quantum of the sample group members' claims at trial would be inappropriate, as it would be difficult to assess the losses of the entire class based on the sample group members' claims. The court held that the quantum of the sample group members' claims should be determined separately, after the liability of the defendant had been determined.

The court's decision provides guidance on the use of sample group members in class actions, and the appropriate timing for determining the quantum of claims. The decision also highlights the importance of considering the efficiency and fairness of the class action process when determining whether a proceeding is appropriate for certification as a class action. The final orders of the court are not provided in the text.

Orders