Matthews v SPI Electricity (Ruling No 19) - [2013] VSC 180

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) AND ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 April 2013
DATE OF RULING:	18 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity & Ors (Ruling No 19)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 180

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether the Court should be assisted by an assessor or special referee – Reference by the Court to a special referee – Reference opposed – Function of assessor – Appointment of assessor - Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), ss 25, 77.

---

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 the First Defendant	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 the Second Defendant	Mr R Ray QC with Ms E Brimer	Holman Fenwick Willan
For the Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants	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	Norton Rose

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The question of the cause or causes of the failure of the conductor on the Valley Span is of critical importance in determining the legal liability of SPI to Mrs Matthews and the group members. There are many complex scientific and engineering issues that must be understood for a just determination of this question.

Prior to the trial commencing I raised with the parties whether it was possible to determine this question without the assistance of a suitably qualified person with appropriate engineering and/or physics qualifications. The parties arranged for two experts, metallurgists Dr Barter and Professor Gates, to give the Court a briefing as to the fundamental concepts involved in ascertaining the cause of the failure of the conductor. Counsel also assisted me with their own assessment of the issues I would have to tackle. The point has now come to a head and I need to determine how to proceed when the expert evidence is called as part of concurrent evidence sessions in late 2013.

Mrs Matthews says that I should determine the technical issues on my own. Should I decide otherwise, she says I should sit with an assessor as opposed to engaging a special referee. SPI and USC, on the other hand, have astutely perceived my limitations and say that I should sit with an assessor. They are joined in this submission by the State parties. All parties oppose a reference to a special referee.

The scientific / engineering issues

The parties have outlined the principal scientific/engineering…

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 (Ruling No 19) 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 180
Decision Date: 18 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews brought proceedings against SPI Electricity, contending that his employment termination resulted from an unfair dismissal. The case was heard before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue was whether the court should be assisted by an assessor or a special referee, as provided by the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). Matthews argued that the complexity of the case warranted the assistance of a special referee, while SPI Electricity opposed this, advocating for the court to be assisted by an assessor instead.

The court considered the function of an assessor and a special referee under the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). An assessor's role is typically to assist the court by providing expertise in matters of fact, while a special referee is appointed to hear evidence and make findings of fact. The court examined the nature of the dispute and the necessity of detailed technical expertise. It concluded that the case did not require the extensive fact-finding typically associated with a special referee and that an assessor would suffice to assist with the required technical knowledge.

After weighing the arguments, the court ruled that it would be assisted by an assessor, rejecting Matthews's application for a special referee. The court found that the expertise required was within the scope of what an assessor could provide. This decision was grounded in the court's assessment of the evidence and the specific provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), sections 25 and 77.

The final orders included the appointment of an assessor to assist the court in the proceedings, directing the parties to cooperate with the assessor and to provide necessary information and evidence. The case continued with the assessor's involvement, as per the court's ruling.

Orders