 |
| ||
New dam strategies to protect Queensland homes
Hundreds of families in Brisbane and Ipswich could be spared the heartache of watching their homes devastated by floods thanks to improved management of the south east’s dams.
Water Supply Minister Mark McArdle today released new operational strategies for the Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine dams to minimise possible flooding ahead of the summer wet season.
“There is no question the region will see major flooding in the future and the Newman LNP Government is committed to doing everything it can to improve our resilience to natural disasters,” Mr McArdle said.
“The government’s strong 30 year plan for the water sector – WaterQ – recognises the challenges we face from climate variability and natural disasters, such as floods and drought.”
“In simple terms, the strategies allow more storage space in the dams to better cope with flood waters.
“In the case of Wivenhoe Dam, more water will be released earlier to minimise flooding.
“This could mean about 500 to 1,500 fewer buildings in Brisbane and Ipswich would be flooded in a repeat of the 2011 flood.
“At North Pine Dam the maximum water supply storage will be set at 90 per cent for up to 20 years.
“The Newman LNP Government is committed to making Queensland a safer place to live, work and raise a family and these measures mean communities will be better protected when flooding strikes again.”
The Wivenhoe Somerset Dam Optimisation Study (WSDOS) and the North Pine Dam Optimisation Study (NPDOS) were recommended by the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry.
Seqwater chief executive Peter Dennis said the studies followed the most comprehensive analysis of dam operations in flood scenarios ever undertaken in south east Queensland.
Mr McArdle said the new Wivenhoe Dam strategy could result in some bridges, such as Colleges Crossing near Ipswich, being closed more regularly when it floods and warned that it was impossible to prevent all flooding in Brisbane and Ipswich.
“All floods are different and the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams are both upstream of Lockyer Creek and the Bremer River and cannot protect us from floods coming down those watercourses,” Mr McArdle said.
The Department of Energy and Water Supply is finalising a preliminary investigation into potential new dams and the raising of Wivenhoe Dam, with the findings due to be completed before Christmas.
| |||
26 November 2014
State Government finally concedes 2011 Wivenhoe Dam strategy was wrong
08 November 2014
SEQ class action set down for 2016 Supreme Court hearing
The class action will go ahead in 2016.
A class action launched against the Queensland Government and its two water authorities will go ahead in 2016.
The Supreme Court in Sydney today struck out the class action's statement of claim - but would allow it to be amended for the case to be heard on July 18, 2016.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn is representing about 4,500 Brisbane and Ipswich flood victims in a bid to claw back more than $1 billion lost in the disaster.
The class action claims too much water was released from Wivenhoe Dam at the peak of the floods to unnecessarily push up the Brisbane and Bremer rivers.
Two of the three defendants - SEQ Water and Sunwater - .
The other defendant, the state of Queensland, did not support the motion.
The Supreme Court today ruled the plaintiff did not address adequately the phrase "risk of harm" as it appeared in the Civil Liability Act.
There was also not enough detail on the cause of the flood nor what height the plaintiff thought would have been appropriate in the lead up to future downpours.
"As well, the plaintiff needed to address its allegations of breach of duty by deleting those allegations which deal with states of mind, and limiting its claim for breach of duty to allegations of acting inappropriately or failing to act appropriately," the judgement said.
The court ruled the class action's statement of claim would be re-pleaded.
"We're pleased that we have a road map for our clients to the final resolution of this case," said Maurice Blackburn's Damian Scattini.
"Preparing for trial in a case of this size and significance takes enormous resources, so while for some July 2016 may seem like a long way off, we will be using every day between now and the trial to bring the strongest case possible before the court."
Seqwater said it was pleasing the Court is asking Maurice Blackburn to clearly articulate its case
In 2012, the Queensland Floods Commission found the dam's manual was not properly followed on the weekend leading up to the flood peak.
More than 78 per cent of Queensland was declared a disaster zone during the floods in December 2010 and January 2011, which affected more than 2.5 million people.
The Supreme Court in Sydney today struck out the class action's statement of claim - but would allow it to be amended for the case to be heard on July 18, 2016.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn is representing about 4,500 Brisbane and Ipswich flood victims in a bid to claw back more than $1 billion lost in the disaster.
The class action claims too much water was released from Wivenhoe Dam at the peak of the floods to unnecessarily push up the Brisbane and Bremer rivers.
Two of the three defendants - SEQ Water and Sunwater - .
The other defendant, the state of Queensland, did not support the motion.
The Supreme Court today ruled the plaintiff did not address adequately the phrase "risk of harm" as it appeared in the Civil Liability Act.
There was also not enough detail on the cause of the flood nor what height the plaintiff thought would have been appropriate in the lead up to future downpours.
"As well, the plaintiff needed to address its allegations of breach of duty by deleting those allegations which deal with states of mind, and limiting its claim for breach of duty to allegations of acting inappropriately or failing to act appropriately," the judgement said.
The court ruled the class action's statement of claim would be re-pleaded.
"We're pleased that we have a road map for our clients to the final resolution of this case," said Maurice Blackburn's Damian Scattini.
"Preparing for trial in a case of this size and significance takes enormous resources, so while for some July 2016 may seem like a long way off, we will be using every day between now and the trial to bring the strongest case possible before the court."
Seqwater said it was pleasing the Court is asking Maurice Blackburn to clearly articulate its case
In 2012, the Queensland Floods Commission found the dam's manual was not properly followed on the weekend leading up to the flood peak.
More than 78 per cent of Queensland was declared a disaster zone during the floods in December 2010 and January 2011, which affected more than 2.5 million people.
www.weatherzone.com.au
7.11.14
 | |
ALMOST four years after southeast Queensland was ravaged by floods, many victims constantly relive the devastation, according to Ipswich councillor Paul Tully.
"Every day, every day" they see the scars left behind, he says on behalf of the 4500 members of the largest class action in Australian history, who are suing the Queensland government over the disaster. Brought by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, the case will be heard from July 18, 2016, in the NSW Supreme Court because Queensland does not have a class action regime. Mr Tully yesterday said the setting of the date let victims know they would get their day in court. But he is also mindful that by then, five years will have passed since the floods left a $2.3 billion damage bill. www.dailytelegraph.com.au 8.11.14 | |
07 November 2014
Scars remain for Brisbane River flood victims
Almost four years after southeast Queensland was ravaged by floods, many victims constantly re-live the devastation, according to Ipswich councillor Paul Tully.
"Every day, every day" they see the scars left behind, he says on behalf of the 4500 members of the largest class action in Australian history who are suing the Queensland government over the disaster.
Brought by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, the case will be heard from July 18, 2016 in the NSW Supreme Court because Queensland does not have a class action regime.
Mr Tully, from the Ipswich suburb of Goodna, said on Friday the setting of the date had given victims fresh hope they would finally have their day in court.
But he is also mindful that by the time of the hearing, five years will have passed since the floods left behind a $2.38 billion trail of destruction, with 200,000 people affected.
In Goodna - the worst-affected area in southeast Queensland - more than 600 homes and businesses were flooded.
"A lot of people are still struggling. Behind the walls there are homes that haven't been restored," Mr Tully said.
"There's individual homes where you still see the effects of the floods inside, where places might look reasonable on the outside but on the inside they're still battle-scarred."
The class action claims dam operators were negligent during the 2011 crisis.
As the rain pelted down and water backed up, operators made large releases to prevent Wivenhoe Dam collapsing.
The lawyers say the result was unnecessary flooding in Brisbane and Ipswich.
Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini says the trial date may seem distant but it's sooner than expected and there is a lot of work to do.
Many of the victims, he said, thought it would never happen.
Mr Tully is conscious it could be 2017 at the earliest before the matter is resolved, and remains hopeful a settlement might be reached sooner.
"It's still going to be a long haul," he said.
"There's ample time for the parties to sit down, when they become fully aware of the strength of each party's case, and I'd be hoping the government takes a lead role in this, and tries to effect a settlement without a lengthy court hearing."
www.9news.com.au
7.11.14
Brisbane and Bremer River Floods Class Action: Link to Statement of Claim in NSW Supreme Court
Click here for the link to the full 153-page Statement of Claim filed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers in the New South Wales Supreme Court on 8 July 2014 on behalf of the Brisbane and Ipswich 2011 flood victims who have signed up for the class action.
The case will be heard in the Supreme Court commencing 18 July 2016, unless settled sooner by the parties.
The action has been commenced in NSW because Queensland does not have a Class Action regime.
 |
| Chief Justice Tim Carmody with Premier Campbell Newman |
Maybe Queensland Chief Justice Tim Carmody could use his close links to the Queensland Government to push for this reform.
7.11.14
7.11.14
Attempt to stop flood victims class action case a low blow
 |
| Award winning journalist Brian Bennion |
IT MAY be "routine" legal play for Seqwater and SunWater to try to stop flood victims taking their case to court but most of Queensland will see it as a low blow.
More than 4500 Ipswich and Brisbane flood victims have a case that must be heard.
The January 2011 floods took lives, destroyed homes, crippled businesses, ruined livelihoods and broke hearts as families lost irreplaceable possessions, especially the simple things like photographs of children.
 |
| 2011 flood slowly rising at corner of Brisbane Tce and Layard St Goodna. Pic: Lubo Jonic |
Is the State Government being a "model litigant" in the proceedings, Premier Campbell Newman?
Mr Newman was quite vocal in making the former government accountable and answerable to the management of Wivenhoe Dam in the lead-up to the floods.
For the government-owned corporations of Seqwater and SunWater to attempt to throw the matter out of court is out of line.
There is a lot to lose. The cost to these corporations and the Government would be more than $1 billion. But there is also a reputation to uphold and the people of Queensland must have faith in the operators of our water assets and an assurance that the management of Wivenhoe Dam minimises the devastating impact of floods and certainly does not exaggerate the impact.
www.QT.com.au
7.11.14
Brisbane River Flood victims get trial date set for July 2016
 |
| Queen St Goodna - January 2011 |
Victims of southeast Queensland's devastating 2011 floods have a trial date set for the largest class action in Australian history.
The class action for approximately 4500 flood victims will be heard in court on July 18, 2016, according to lawyers representing the victims.
The date was handed down on Thursday at the Federal Court of Australia to the relief of victims, who claim dam operators were negligent during the 2011 flood.
As the rain pelted down and water backed up, operators were forced to make large water releases to prevent Wivenhoe dam from collapsing.
The result was unnecessary flooding in Brisbane and Ipswich to the west, lawyers have claimed.
Previous estimates have suggested a possible compensation claim of $1 billion.
Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini says the trial date may seem distant, but it's sooner than expected and there is a lot of work to do.
Many of the victims, he said, thought it would never happen.
The action was lodged in NSW because there's no class action regime in Queensland.
www.skynews.com.au
6.11.14
COMMENT: It's now time for Premier Campbell Newman, Seqwater and SunWater to do what the Premier said he would do in 2012 and act like a "model litigant". This issue has dragged on for almost 4 years and the state government and its two recalcitrant agencies should now offer to sit around the negotiating table to achieve an honourable outcome for the 4500 flood victims who suffered so much on 11-12 January 2011. This should provide a just outcome without the necessity of a long, drawn-out Supreme Court trial where the only guaranteed winners are the lawyers. - Paul Tully
Seqwater loses round one as judge throws out challenge to Brisbane River class action flood claim
FLOOD victims from Ipswich will get their chance to fight for compensation with a trial date set for July 2016.
The class action headed to court this week as two of the three defendants, Seqwater and SunWater, moved to have the claim struck out.
Their application was based on a lack of detail in the claim, arguing an absence of any alternative water release strategy was a fundamental flaw.
The State of Queensland did not support the application before the court.
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Damian Scattini yesterday said the judge had ruled the case would continue.
"It is good news that we have a trial date," Mr Scattini said.
"There will be people that look at that as some time away but there is plenty of work to do before then. It's a good outcome.
"People will have their day in court. There's nothing that will stop that."
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers filed the claim in the New South Wales Supreme Court in July on behalf of more than 4500 affected residents and business owners.
Their case claims dam engineers were negligent in their handling of the disaster which ultimately led to huge volumes of water being released downstream as a last resort to protect the structural integrity of the dam.
The 150-page claim was lodged in NSW because there is no avenue in Queensland to launch a class action.
The operators of Wivenhoe Dam have denied any wrongdoing.
SunWater declined to comment on the matter and Seqwater would not comment on yesterday's developments.
The water corporations' moves to strike out the statement of claim only appeared to boost the confidence of homeowners and businesses that have joined the class action.
 |
| Goodna flood victim Frank Beaumont - Wants an admission the authorities got it wrong |
Goodna homeowner Frank Beaumont whose home of 27 years was completely submerged in the floodwaters, leaving nothing but three walls, the roof and internal timber frames to return to, yesterday said he was pleased to hear the claim was going ahead.
"The money is secondary to some admission that they were wrong," Mr Beaumont said.
"Yes, the money would be handy because it cost us everything we ever had.
"I've got no superannuation left. We had no money. We had to beg, borrow and steal at the time to even get started with the house.
"I want some satisfaction that that they did not follow procedures.
"We can't sell our houses. We've lost 39-45% of the value of our properties. We've lost all our savings, everything."
 |
| Goodna Services Club President Dave Christie - "Why try to stop it if there's nothing to hide?" |
Goodna Services Club president David Christie said a large number of members were affected by the flood and the club struggled through an 18-month closure after the flood.
The club lost infrastructure and fittings to two buildings but was able to refurbish and operate temporarily out of the smaller function room three months after the flood.
Mr Christie said the club luckily had cash reserves to keep it going until refurbishments were completed but he said those reserves were almost exhausted.
He said the application to shut down the case only highlighted what the government-owned corporations had to lose.
"I can understand what Seqwater, SunWater and the government are doing," Mr Christie said.
"It's all about saving money. They stand to lose one or two billion dollars.
"Why try to stop it if there's nothing to hide?"
 |
| Cr Paul Tully - Confident the claim will succeed |
Goodna-based Councillor Paul Tully said he was confident Maurice Blackburn Lawyers would be able to prove the Wivenhoe Dam was mismanaged in the lead-up to the January 2011 flood.
"It is good the flood victims of Ipswich and Brisbane have finally got their day in court after four frustrating years," Cr Tully said.
7.11.14
06 November 2014
Bentham IMF Wivenhoe Dam case set to open litigation floodgates
 |
| Wivenhoe Dam: Flood litigation case is being funded by Bentham IMF. |
What's new?
Listed litigation funder Bentham IMF's fully-owned US subsidiary is picking up steam after announcing the funding of further cases in August. Last month the company announced it had a successful outcome which will generate income of $16 million and a profit of approximately $7.6 million before tax and after capitalised costs.
Australia, meanwhile, provides a strong base for the company, being at least the fifth largest common law litigation market in the world. IMF's Australian business continues to go from strength to strength, with the funding of the Wivenhoe Dam case, one that is expected to be the company's largest funded case to date.
A Statement of Claim against the State of Queensland and others in respect to the Brisbane Floods was filed in July. Other recent actions include open-class proceedings to enable bank customers who have paid late fees, but are not presently a part of original class actions, to be able to participate in the eventual outcome. Last month the company announced a conditional settlement of a confidential matter in Australia, which is likely to generate $2.5 million of income and a gross profit of approximately $1.6 million.
The scale that Bentham IMF has built will allow it to tackle larger cases and aggressive defendants. While predicting how each single case will ultimately fare is difficult to predict, Bentham IMF seeks to stack the odds in its favour and build a portfolio of cases that stand to deliver attractive returns for shareholders. The company certainly has a formidable track record here, having commenced and completed 159 cases as at 30 June, from the time of its listing on the ASX in 2001. The average investment period was 2.3 years and Bentham has collected $1.47 billion from these cases, with approximately 65 per cent going to clients ($957m) and $514 million to Bentham, comprised of $189 million in reimbursement costs and $325 million in net revenue. Gross return on investment has been high, at around 273 per cent. Only six cases have been lost and the company withdrew from a further 35.
Outlook
We expect to see Bentham pursue many more offshore opportunities in the years to come, with offices established in Los Angeles, New York and the UK. The company's focus will be on similar markets with a strong rule of law, established legal systems with a clear set of statutory laws and legal fraternity. The company also entered into an agreement with US investment group Elliott Management earlier in the year, and this stands the company in good stead for future deal flow. The deal will assist the company in funding cases throughout Europe and co-fund larger cases in the Asia Pacific.
The agreement provides Bentham IMF with a partner that has very deep pockets, and opens up a far broader universe of potential attractive opportunities, further positioning the company to become a leading litigation player globally.
Third-party litigation funding has moved ahead quickly in the US, UK and the Netherlands over the past five years and become more readily accepted as a funding alternative. Competition is relatively limited as well.
Price
Trading in the shares has been volatile of late, but given a strong fundamental picture, and with prices below recent highs, there would appear a reasonable entry point at the moment.
Worth Buying?
We believe the company offers an interesting investment opportunity with a strong management team, good deal flow and a diversified investment portfolio. The tie-up with Elliott Management further strengthens the case for Bentham IMF. Due to the nature of litigation funding, future earnings are difficult to estimate, particularly in regards to what timeframe they fall in. However, the stock is currently trading on circa 8.7 times consensus EPS estimates for fiscal 2015. We view this as inexpensive given the company's broad investment portfolio and the potential to return a significant dividend if successful in a number of its cases over the next couple of years.
Outlook
We expect to see Bentham pursue many more offshore opportunities in the years to come, with offices established in Los Angeles, New York and the UK. The company's focus will be on similar markets with a strong rule of law, established legal systems with a clear set of statutory laws and legal fraternity. The company also entered into an agreement with US investment group Elliott Management earlier in the year, and this stands the company in good stead for future deal flow. The deal will assist the company in funding cases throughout Europe and co-fund larger cases in the Asia Pacific.
The agreement provides Bentham IMF with a partner that has very deep pockets, and opens up a far broader universe of potential attractive opportunities, further positioning the company to become a leading litigation player globally.
Third-party litigation funding has moved ahead quickly in the US, UK and the Netherlands over the past five years and become more readily accepted as a funding alternative. Competition is relatively limited as well.
Price
Trading in the shares has been volatile of late, but given a strong fundamental picture, and with prices below recent highs, there would appear a reasonable entry point at the moment.
Worth Buying?
We believe the company offers an interesting investment opportunity with a strong management team, good deal flow and a diversified investment portfolio. The tie-up with Elliott Management further strengthens the case for Bentham IMF. Due to the nature of litigation funding, future earnings are difficult to estimate, particularly in regards to what timeframe they fall in. However, the stock is currently trading on circa 8.7 times consensus EPS estimates for fiscal 2015. We view this as inexpensive given the company's broad investment portfolio and the potential to return a significant dividend if successful in a number of its cases over the next couple of years.
www.SMH.com.au
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/bentham-imf-wivenhoe-dam-case-set-to-open-litigation-floodgates-20141021-1197or.html#ixzz3IF4E6YQi
Brisbane flood claim bogged down in legal argument by state entities
 |
| A torrent of water is released from the Wivenhoe Dam into the Brisbane River after flooding rains in January 2011. |
If successful, the massive class action, representing more than 4000 victims of the 2011 January floods in the state’s southeast, could reap hundreds of millions of dollars for claimants.
But the State Government has tried to have the matter dismissed before evidence is heard, alleging a lack of detail in the claim brought by Maurice Blackburn lawyers and backed by litigation funder IMF.
Seqwater, which had control of Wivenhoe during the floods, is defending the claims that dam engineers followed a flawed strategy that led to much of the flooding.
Chief Executive Officer Peter Dennis said the application to throw the matter out was related to a lack of specifics in the claim.
Seqwater had expected the class action to contain evidence from international experts outlining an alternative water-release strategy that would have better protected householders.
“There is no reference to this modelling in the current claim,” Mr Dennis said.
Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini was last night confident the class action would go ahead.
He described the Government’s tactics as typical of the legal skirmishes accompanying such cases.
“Applications such as this are routine in class actions,” Mr Scattini said.
“Usually, there are many applications by both sides along the way. Whatever happens, the class action will continue and our clients will get their day in court.”
6.11.14
2011 Brisbane River flood sequel: Court bid to throw out Australia's largest class action
 |
| 2011 flood at Goodna |
AUSTRALIA'S largest class action on behalf of victims of the 2011 floods was in the courts yesterday as Seqwater and SunWater moved to have the claim struck out.
It was the first court hearing since Maurice Blackburn Lawyers filed the claim against Seqwater, SunWater and the State of Queensland in the New South Wales Supreme Court in July.
Seqwater chief executive officer Peter Dennis said the application was based on a lack of detail in the claim.
"The public has been told for some time by the solicitors and funders for the class action that modelling by international experts has been undertaken to support an alternative water release strategy during the January 2011 flood event, that shows little or no flooding would have occurred," Mr Dennis said. "There is no reference to this modelling in the current claim.
"Seqwater considers the absence of any alternative water release strategy to be a fundamental flaw in the claim."
Lawyers for the 4500 Ipswich and Brisbane flood victims involved in the class action emerged confident from the first day of a three-day hearing into the application.
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Damian Scattini said applications such as this were routine in class actions and he had no doubt the class action would proceed.
"This application is, no doubt, the first of many such skirmishes we will go through in this class action," Mr Scattini said.
"We knew that from the start and we remain confident in the strength of our case.
"Whatever happens, the class action will continue and our clients will get their day in court."
Ipswich City Councillor Paul Tully, whose Goodna home was affected by the floods, called on the State Government to negotiate a settlement of the claim.
"It is disappointing the State Government is vigorously contesting the claim given both former premier Anna Bligh and (then) opposition leader Campbell Newman indicated the state should act as a model litigant in any legal proceedings," Cr Tully said.
"I am calling on the State Government to negotiate a settlement of the claim without wasting more taxpayers' money on lawyers' fighting what is the largest class action ever launched in Australia.
"Home and businesses owners who are part of the class action deserve to be fully compensated for their losses."
Whatever happens, the class action will continue and our clients will get their day in court.
6.11.14
05 November 2014
Queensland flood class action hits legal hurdle
 |
| Goodna Services Club, January 2011 |
Queensland water authorities are attempting to strike out a class action claim for damages stemming from the 2011 flood in south-east Queensland.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn is representing about 4,000 Brisbane and Ipswich flood victims in a bid to claw back more than a billion dollars lost in the disaster.
The class action, which was being heard in the Supreme Court in Sydney, claimed too much water was released from Wivenhoe Dam at the peak of the floods to unnecessarily push up the Brisbane and Bremer rivers.
In 2012, the Queensland Floods Commission found the dam's manual was not properly followed on the weekend leading up to the flood peak.
Today, two of the three defendants - SEQ Water and Sunwater - filed motions to have the claims struck out.
The other defendant the State of Queensland did not support the motion.
A spokeswoman for Maurice Blackburn said applications to strike out claims were routine and believed the class action would continue.
The case resumes on Thursday and was expected to run all week.
More than 78 per cent of Queensland was declared a disaster zone during the floods in December 2010 and January 2011, which affected more than 2.5 million people.
Seqwater and SunWater breaching State Principles over flood class action
The Queensland Government reviewed its Model Litigant Principles on 12 October 2012.
The Model Litigant Principles can be accessed here.
These Principles which were issued by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General are intended to serve as a binding requirement on the State Government and its agencies in the handling of all litigation.
The introduction to the Principles states:
The Principles go on to state numerous requirements, most-significantly requiring the State and its agencies to ensure they are consistently "dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the handling of claims and litigation".
Have the Boards of Seqwater and SunWater ever read these binding Principles?
It would appear the answer is a resounding "NO" because of their antics today in the New South Wales Supreme Court to get the Court to unilaterally throw out the class action case against them by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on behalf of over 4000 Brisbane River flood victims who suffered financially and personally as a result of the January 2011 flood.
The buffoons running these two entities should be abiding by the spirit and letter of these Principles rather than trying to use every legal technicality possible to stop the case proceeding to its ultimate conclusion.
Even the State Government did not fall into the trap of breaching its own Principles.
Seqwater, SunWater and the Queensland Government should be looking for an early settlement of this class action to avoid running up a king's ransom in legal fees to ensure that their morally indefensible stance does not drag on for years at the expense of bona fide claimants who are still hurting badly as a result of the bumbling ineptitude of Seqwater in the lead-up to the 2011 flood.
Seqwater and SunWater should hang their heads in shame over their treatment of flood victims
In a disgraceful move, Queensland government entities Seqwater and SunWater have treated victims of the 2011 Brisbane River flood disgracefully.
When the Floods Commission of Inquiry Report was handed down in 2012, there was bipartisan support from the then Premier Anna Bligh and then LNP Leader Campbell Newman that, irrespective of the pending election, each of them would ensure the Queensland government acted as a "model litigant" in the event of a class action over the flood.
On 8 July 2014, a class action was filed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on behalf of over 4000 claimants in the New South Wales Supreme Court. It was funded by Bentham IMF Limited.
That is truly appalling behaviour by these two entities who are proving they have hearts of lead and the compassion of a dead dingo.
 |
| Peter Denniss - CEO Seqwater |
Peter Denniss, the head of Seqwater, said the NSW Supreme Court strike-out action was based on the "lack of detail in the (class action) claim".
Is he serious? - A detailed 153 page claim and he says there is a "lack of detail"!
Does he know what a "model litigant" is?
The Premier Campbell Newman should step in and tell those running these two out-of-touch entities to pull their horns in and allow the class action to proceed unhindered by legal technicalities, corporate prevarication and inappropriate delaying tactics.
Only then can the Supreme Court begin to consider the merits of the legal action free from petty legal tactics which make some of Clive Palmer's more-outrageous courtroom antics look like those of positively-impeccable litigant.
The Premier Campbell Newman should step in and tell those running these two out-of-touch entities to pull their horns in and allow the class action to proceed unhindered by legal technicalities, corporate prevarication and inappropriate delaying tactics.
Only then can the Supreme Court begin to consider the merits of the legal action free from petty legal tactics which make some of Clive Palmer's more-outrageous courtroom antics look like those of positively-impeccable litigant.
Disgraceful bid by Seqwater to kill Brisbane River flood class action
MORE than 4000 flood victims of alleged negligence by operators of Brisbane’s Wivenhoe Dam in 2011 face a legal hurdle today as lawyers for the Newman government try to terminate their class action.
State-owned Seqwater will argue in the Supreme Court in Sydney that the class action should be struck out. The legal bout represents an early bid by the insurers of Wivenhoe Dam, potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars of a multibillion-dollar damages claim.
The flood victims from the January 2011 Brisbane River disaster are represented by Maurice Blackburn, with funding from litigation funder IMF.
Flood victims have been told by the law firm that the Queensland government-owned entities “seek orders that the claim be struck out in its entirety — that we be, in effect, ordered to start again with a whole new statement of claim. We believe that we have the better argument and we are confident”.
Peter Denniss, the head of Seqwater, said the NSW Supreme Court strike-out action was based on “the lack of detail in the (class action) claim”.
“The public has been told for some time by the solicitors and funders for the class action that modelling by international experts has been undertaken to support an alternative water- release strategy during the January 2011 flood event that shows little or no flooding would have occurred,” Mr Denniss said yesterday. “There is no reference to this modelling in the current claim.
“The solicitors and funders for the class action have had more than 3 ½ years to prepare the claim. Seqwater considers the absence of any alternative water- release strategy to be a fundamental flaw in the claim.”
Damian Scattini, who has been managing the class action for Maurice Blackburn, rejected the criticisms, and said there were “terabytes of data” and a huge volume of material. “Whatever happens, the class action will continue and our clients will get their day in court. This application is no doubt the first of many such skirmishes we will go through .”
Maurice Blackburn said in July that its international experts were highly confident the flooding from Wivenhoe Dam would have been almost completely avoided.
The closed-door multimillion-dollar evidence-testing program by a team of US-based hydrologists retained by the law firm has been withheld from preliminary filings. The hydrologists who performed the work have also been shielded from public scrutiny.
The total payout in the event of a success by the Maurice Blackburn-IMF combination could be as much as $2 billion to compensate South East Queensland families and businesses for their significant losses.
Wrongdoing has been emphatically denied by the operators of Wivenhoe Dam.
State-owned Seqwater will argue in the Supreme Court in Sydney that the class action should be struck out. The legal bout represents an early bid by the insurers of Wivenhoe Dam, potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars of a multibillion-dollar damages claim.
The flood victims from the January 2011 Brisbane River disaster are represented by Maurice Blackburn, with funding from litigation funder IMF.
Flood victims have been told by the law firm that the Queensland government-owned entities “seek orders that the claim be struck out in its entirety — that we be, in effect, ordered to start again with a whole new statement of claim. We believe that we have the better argument and we are confident”.
Peter Denniss, the head of Seqwater, said the NSW Supreme Court strike-out action was based on “the lack of detail in the (class action) claim”.
“The public has been told for some time by the solicitors and funders for the class action that modelling by international experts has been undertaken to support an alternative water- release strategy during the January 2011 flood event that shows little or no flooding would have occurred,” Mr Denniss said yesterday. “There is no reference to this modelling in the current claim.
“The solicitors and funders for the class action have had more than 3 ½ years to prepare the claim. Seqwater considers the absence of any alternative water- release strategy to be a fundamental flaw in the claim.”
 |
| Damian Scattini - Maurice Blackburn Lawyers |
Damian Scattini, who has been managing the class action for Maurice Blackburn, rejected the criticisms, and said there were “terabytes of data” and a huge volume of material. “Whatever happens, the class action will continue and our clients will get their day in court. This application is no doubt the first of many such skirmishes we will go through .”
Maurice Blackburn said in July that its international experts were highly confident the flooding from Wivenhoe Dam would have been almost completely avoided.
The closed-door multimillion-dollar evidence-testing program by a team of US-based hydrologists retained by the law firm has been withheld from preliminary filings. The hydrologists who performed the work have also been shielded from public scrutiny.
The total payout in the event of a success by the Maurice Blackburn-IMF combination could be as much as $2 billion to compensate South East Queensland families and businesses for their significant losses.
Wrongdoing has been emphatically denied by the operators of Wivenhoe Dam.
www.theAustralian.com.au
5.11.14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)