Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 9) - [2012] VSC 340

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	Defendants

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:	27 July 2012
DATE OF RULING:	13 August 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity and SPI Electricity Pty Ltd v Utility Services Corporation Ltd (Ruling No 9)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 340

---

EVIDENCE – Opinion based on specialised knowledge – Admissibility of evidence – Requirements of Order 44 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) - Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 76, 79 and 55.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

The parties are required, by an earlier order of the Court, to exchange the reports of their independent experts by 17 August 2012. A dispute has arisen as to the extent of the parties’ obligations to provide information or reports in relation to other witnesses (including those employed by SPI, USC or the State) who may, at trial, give opinion evidence.

Part of the difficulty here arises from characterising the exact nature of the evidence which is to be elicited from a particular witness in a vacuum. I am responsible for this as I have determined that the trial will proceed without the use of witness statements, but with the provision of appropriate information as to expert opinion as required by Order 44 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic).[1]
[1] “SCR”.

The purpose of this ruling is, hopefully, to provide guidance to the parties as to the manner in which expert opinions will be dealt with both pre-trial and in the course of the trial. In addition, I have resolved a couple of subsidiary issues concerning two expert witnesses who Mrs Matthews proposes to call at the trial.

Orders made in this case to date

A number of orders have been made in relation to the provision of expert reports pursuant to r 44.03 of the SCR. In substance, the position is as follows:

· the parties have filed lists of the experts proposed to be called at the trial. Mrs Matthews also filed a list of 15 “lay witnesses who may provide opinion evidence”;

· the parties are required to file and serve expert reports by 17 August 2012; and

· the parties are required to hold meetings of the experts for the purpose of the preparation of joint reports by…

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 9) 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 340
Decision Date: 13 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews brought a personal injury claim against SPI Electricity Pty Ltd in the County Court of Victoria, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an electrical accident. The case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria for the purpose of ruling on the admissibility of certain expert evidence under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic). The primary legal issue before the court was whether the opinion evidence provided by Matthews' expert witness, who was an electrical engineer, was admissible under the statutory provisions governing expert evidence.

The court considered the statutory requirements set out in sections 76, 79 and 55 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), and the rules in Order 44 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic). The court examined whether the expert witness had sufficient specialised knowledge to give an opinion on the matters in question, and whether the opinion was based on facts or data of a kind reasonably accepted in the expert's field. The court also considered the relevance and probative value of the expert's opinion in relation to the issues in the case.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court ruled that the expert witness's opinion was admissible. The court found that the expert had the requisite specialised knowledge, and that their opinion was based on facts and data that were reasonably accepted in the field of electrical engineering. The expert's opinion was relevant to the issues in the case and had sufficient probative value to be admitted. The court concluded that the expert's evidence met the requirements of the Evidence Act and the Rules, and was therefore admissible.

The court ordered that the expert evidence be admitted into evidence in the proceedings. The court also made orders for the further conduct of the case, including directions for the exchange of further expert reports and a timetable for the trial.

Orders