Rowe v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No 7) - [2016] VSC 424

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:	21 JUNE 2016 (Further material filed 30 June 2016)
DATE OF RULING:	26 JULY 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	ROWE v AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD & ORS (RULING No 7)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 424

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Group proceedings – Administration of approved settlement scheme – Approval of administration costs.

---

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

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 (‘Deed’) 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 (‘SDS’) that it created.[1]
[1]A copy of the Deed and SDS is available on the Court website at:

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 Murrindindi settlement.

A joint case management conference was convened on 21 June 2016 for the Scheme Administrator, Mr Andrew Watson, to report to the Court on the progress of the Murrindindi administration.

The Scheme Administrator earlier filed an affidavit sworn 16 March 2016, and a confidential affidavit filed 22 March 2016, that explained in some considerable detail the progress of the administration of the scheme. He has filed two further affidavits sworn 16 and 20 June 2016 respectively. I have carefully considered each of these affidavits and heard from Mr Watson at the case management conference.

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 the claims.

A reasonably detailed explanation of the structure and processes of the settlement schemes now collectively operating for the Murrindindi and Kilmore-East Kinglake has previously been set out and I need not repeat it.[2] Further J Forrest J has published his ruling in respect of the Kilmore-East Kinglake SDS following the case management conference on 21 June 2016.[3]
[2]Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No. 40) [2015] VSC 131, Rowe v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No. 6) [2016] VSC 166,

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 7) 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 424
Decision Date: 26 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rowe, sought judicial review of a decision by AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd, the respondent, to approve the administration costs of a settlement scheme related to a class action concerning alleged electricity overcharging. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant contended that the court had erred in approving the administration costs of the settlement scheme without sufficient evidence and proper justification.

The central issue before the court was whether the decision to approve the administration costs was lawful, reasonable, and justifiable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the costs were necessary and reasonable in the context of the settlement scheme, and whether the respondent had adequately justified the costs in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

The court found that the decision to approve the administration costs was lawful and reasonable. The respondent had provided detailed evidence and justification for the costs, including the nature of the work undertaken, the expertise required, and the market rates for such services. The court held that the respondent had acted within its discretion and that the costs were proportionate to the benefits of the settlement scheme. The court further determined that the approval process was transparent and that the respondent had acted in accordance with the relevant guidelines and principles.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and confirmed the approval of the administration costs. The decision underscored the importance of a robust and justifiable process for the administration of settlement schemes, ensuring that costs are appropriately managed and that the interests of all parties are protected.

Orders