IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

BETWEEN
CAROL ANN MATTHEWS
and
srI ELECTRICITY rTY LTD (ACN 064 651 1\8) & ORS
(by original proceeding)
AND BETWEEN
SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD (ACN 064 651 118)
No 4788 of 2009
Plaint iff
Defendants
Plaintiff by Counterclaim
and
UTILITY SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 060 674 580) & ORS
Defendants by Counterclaim
(by counterclaim)
CERTIFICATE IDENTIFYING EXHIBIT
Date of document: 24 March 2011
Filed on behalf of: the first defendant
Prepared by:
Solicitor's Code: 420
DX: 240 Melbourne
Tel: +61392881234
Fax: +61392881567 Frechi ll s
Level 43 101 Collins Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Ref: KAA:REO:81720904
Attention: Ken Adams
Email: kcn.adams@freehill s.com
This is the exhibit marked "KAA:4" now produced and shown to Kenneth Alexander Adams at the
time of swearing his affidavit on 24 March 2011.
Freehills 8165581
RUTIlIeUZABElWOlli:J;'jjM&70;, / Z . ~ , , - - ' - - -
FreehifS
101 Collins Street Mefoourne
M Austrailan l O1l8l Practitioner wItllln 111, "KAA: 4 "
meanIng of tile l&gal Profession Act 2004.
Correspondence between Maurice Blackburn
/ Oldham Naidoo lawyers and Freehills
Our Ref : BMM13004166
T: (OJ) 9605 2735
F: (03)92589610
E: bushfireca@mauriceblackbum.com.au
28 July 2010
Mr Ken Adams
Freehills Lawyers
BY EMAIL: ken.adams@freehills.com
Dear Mr Adams
Ae: Leo Keane v SP Australia Networks (Distribution) Ltd trading as SP Ausnet & Anor
Supreme Court Proceeding No. 4788/2009
We refer to the Court orders made on 23 July 2010.
It has come to our attention that the reference to Rule 9.06 in connection with paragraph 1 (b)
of the Orders dated 23 July 2010 may have consequences for the calculation of interest
pursuanl lo s.60 of the Supreme Court Act in respect of the cl aims made by the plaintiff and
group members.
Those potential consequences were not detected at the time of the hearing. The orders
could equally have been made under Rule 36.01 without the potential side-effects and in the
circumstances it is not appropriate that the interest claims of the plaintiff and group members
be prejudiced by the reference to one provision of the Rules rather than another.
Accordingly we propose to ask the Court to vary the orders dated 23 July so that Order 1 (b)
is made a separate order in the following terms:
"Pursuant to Order 36 of the Rules the name of the defendant be corrected by
deleting the ref erences to SP Australia Networks (Distribution) Ltd and SP Australia
Networks (Transmission) Ltd and for them substituting the name SPI Electricity Pty
Ltd (ACN 064 651 118), and SP Australia Networks (Distribution) Ltd and
SP Australia Networks (Transmission) Ltd cease to be parties to the proceeding."
We will ask the Court to list the mailer for a mention on Friday 30 July 2010 so that we can
seek this variation to the earlier Orders.
We seek your client's consent, alternatively its agreement not to oppose, an application on
behalf of the plaintiff to the effect set out above.
\2490354 _1 .DOC
Yours Faithfully
Bushfire Class Action
MAURICE BLACKBURN LAWYERS &
OLDHAM NAIDOO LAWYERS
DOC
Freehills
Ms Irina Lubomirska
Maurice Blackburn
llubomirska@mauriceblackburn.com.au
Oear Irina
3 August 2010
Matter 81720904
By email
SP Australia Networks (Distribution) Ltd &
SP Australia Networks (Transmission) ltd ats Leo Keane
Supreme Court of Victoria Proceeding No 4788 of 2009
We refer to the telephone discussion earlier today between Ken Adams and Irina
Lubomirska.
In that discussion we advised that we anticipated obtaining instructions to not oppose
your client's application to vary the orders made on 23 July 2010.
We have now obtained those fonnal instructions. Don Farrands of counsel will appear
tomorrow on behalf of our dien! to inform the Coun accordingly.
Yours sincerely
:2y'/j
Ruth Overington
Senior Associate
Freehills
-+-6 1 3 92.88 1946
+61 421 643204
ruth.overinglon@freehi lls.com
Doc 58139(>4
101 Stfee! Mel bourne Vi.:: 3000 Auslraroa
GPO Box 12M MelbOurnl! VIC 3001 Ausll j ba
f elepll Ol1I1 . 6 1 3 9288 12J4 . 6 13 9289151:11
www lrlHltlllls.com ox ""0 Me!tlOurne