Citipower Pty v Leahy - [2007] VSC 95

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 5640 of 2006

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL on a question of law
pursuant to Section 92 Magistrates' Court Act 1989

CITIPOWER PTY ACN 010 788 502	Appellant
V
MICHAEL LEAHY	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 February 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 April 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Citipower Pty v Michael Leahy
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 95

---

APPEAL from Magistrates’ Court – prosecution s.75 (b) of the Electricity Safety Act 1998, – expansion of case by court after close of evidence – sufficiency of evidence for findings of fact – fact finding amounting to question of law - R v Minh Tien Nguyen [2006] VSCA 293 – R v Torney (1983) 8 Crim R 437.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr. R. Ray Q.C. with Mr. R. Taylor	Landers and Rogers
For the Respondent	Mr. G. Uren Q.C. with Mr. M. Scarfo	Energy Safe Victoria

HER HONOUR:

This is an appeal against the final orders of the Magistrates’ Court made on 20 March 2006 whereby his Honour found Charge 16 proved, being a charge of failing to take reasonable care to ensure that all parts of its upstream network that it owns and operates are safe and operated safely pursuant to s.75 (b) of the Electricity Safety Act 1998, in which the respondent Michael Leahy was the informant and City Power Pty ACN 010 788 502 was the defendant. His Honour found the appellant guilty and fined it $50,000 without conviction and ordered it to pay costs of $4,186 on Charge 16.

Background

On 2 June 2003 electricity line workers were engaged by City Power Pty (hereafter the appellant) to reposition some aerial electricity cables at the corner of Swanston and Queensberry Streets, Carlton. A work order had been provided in relation to the work that the electricity line workers were to perform at that site. Mr Guy, an employee of the appellant company, and the supervisor of the project had issued the work order which read as follows:

“Step 1 Call Control Room 2978818
1.      Swanston Street on Queensberry P84958 check open point and         tag.
2.      Swanston Street cr. Queensberry P81145 check open point and         tag.
3.      Queensberry cr. Swanston P81142 remove fuses from box on            pole test tag and bond ABC circuit.
4.      922 Swanston issue PTW.
Restoration
Reverse steps 1-4
Restoration
Reverse steps 1-5
Work site Call Control Room 2978818 – always test and bond

Instruction Completed

Signed

Return to control group when instructions completed

The appellant employed a Mr Stock and a Mr Gardner to complete the task. They were issued with the work order as described, together with switching instructions and a plan and drawings of the cables site by the appellant company’s supervisor. Mr Stock’s evidence was that the instructions were to remove a piece of wire in between two poles to make it…

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.

Continue reading Citipower Pty v Leahy

Details

AGLC: Citipower Pty v Leahy [2007] VSC 95
Case: [2007] VSC 95
Decision Date: 12 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Citipower Pty Limited, an electricity supplier, appealed against a conviction and penalty imposed by the Magistrates’ Court against Mr. Leahy, a former employee, under section 75(b) of the Electricity Safety Act 1998. The dispute centred on allegations that Mr. Leahy engaged in unsafe practices during his employment, leading to a prosecution by Citipower. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the procedural and evidentiary issues raised during the trial.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial court appropriately expanded the case after the close of evidence and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact. The court also considered whether the fact-finding process involved a question of law, which would have required a different standard of review. The court referred to the cases of R v Minh Tien Nguyen and R v Torney to determine the appropriate legal principles to apply in these circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial court had exceeded its authority by expanding the case after the close of evidence without proper justification. The court held that such an action was not permissible under the circumstances of this case. Additionally, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings of fact made by the Magistrates’ Court. Consequently, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and penalty imposed on Mr. Leahy.

Given the findings, the Court of Appeal ordered that the case be remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for a rehearing, ensuring that proper evidentiary and procedural standards were observed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to legal principles to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders