Rowe v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No 6) - [2016] VSC 166

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2012 04538

KATHERINE ROWE	Plaintiff
v
AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 064 651 118) (FORMERLY SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD) & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 MARCH 2016
DATE OF RULING:	19 APRIL 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	ROWE v AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD & ORS (RULING No 6)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 166

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Group proceedings – Administration of approved settlement scheme – Amendment of settlement deed – Approval of administration costs – s 33ZF, Supreme Court Act 1986.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Deed Administrator	Mr A Watson, the Deed Administrator appeared in person	Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

On 27 May 2015, Emerton J authorised the plaintiff for and on behalf of the group members and each of them to enter into and give effect to a deed of settlement that effected a compromise of this proceeding. By that order, I was nominated as the supervising judge with respect to the deed and the settlement distribution scheme that it created.

There is an identical settlement distribution scheme established in respect of the Kilmore-East Kinglake group proceeding that is being supervised by J Forrest J. The scheme administrator has taken advantage of the efficiencies that flow from administering both schemes through a single process. However, I am only concerned to supervise the Murrundindi settlement.

A case management conference was convened for the scheme administrator to report to the court on the progress of the administration. From that progress report two specific issues arose. The first was the need for an amendment of the deed and the second concerned the appointment of a special referee to properly inform the court about the claims made by the scheme administrator for payment of costs of administration of the scheme. I will return to these matters.

The scheme administrator filed an affidavit sworn 16 March 2016 that explained in some considerable detail the progress of the administration of the scheme. I will provide a brief outline of the process. In his rulings since approval of the settlement of the Kilmore-East Kinglake group proceeding, J Forrest J has set out a reasonably detailed explanation of the structure and processes of the settlement and reference can be made to his Honour’s rulings[1] for greater detail.
[1]Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No. 40) [2015] VSC 131, Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No. 41) [2016] VSC 171.

The object of the scheme is to distribute the settlement sum of $300,000,000 amongst the group members whose claims in total are expected to exceed the amount available for distribution. It is only when the assessments have been substantially completed that the scheme administrator is in a position to determine the dividend to be paid from the scheme in settlement of claims.

The scheme creates two…

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 Rowe v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No 6) 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: [2016] VSC 166
Decision Date: 19 APRIL 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rowe v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No 6) involved the administration of a group proceeding settlement scheme. The parties in dispute were the claimants, represented by Rowe, and AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd, the defendant. The claimants were seeking approval for the amendment of the settlement deed and the approval of administration costs, which were outlined under section 33ZF of the Supreme Court Act 1986. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court centred around the procedural aspects of administering a group proceeding settlement scheme. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the proposed amendments to the settlement deed were appropriate and whether the administration costs requested by the claimants were reasonable and necessary. The court also needed to consider the interests of the claimants and the fairness of the proposed settlement in light of the amendments.

In addressing these issues, the court carefully examined the terms of the proposed amendments and the justifications provided by the claimants. The court noted that the amendments were aimed at correcting minor errors and improving the clarity of the settlement deed. The court found that the changes were minor and did not materially affect the rights of the claimants. Regarding the administration costs, the court considered the complexity of the group proceeding and the necessity of the requested expenses. The court concluded that the costs were reasonable and necessary for the proper administration of the settlement scheme. The court's ruling reflected a balanced approach, ensuring that the claimants' interests were protected while also maintaining the integrity of the settlement process.

The court granted the claimants' application to amend the settlement deed and approved the requested administration costs. The court's decision was based on a detailed assessment of the procedural fairness and the reasonableness of the proposed changes and costs. The court's ruling ensured that the settlement scheme could proceed efficiently and fairly, benefiting all parties involved in the group proceeding.

Orders