Cordosa v SA Power Networks

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Civil)

CORDOSA v SA POWER NETWORKS

[2022] SASC 48

Reasons for Decision of Judge Bochner a Master of the Supreme Court  

13 May 2022

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - CLASS ACTIONS OR GROUP PROCEEDINGS

Reasons for approval of settlement of representative action

Williams v FAI Home Security Pty Ltd (No 4) [2000] FCA 1925; Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 663; Rowe v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 232; Darwalla Milling Co Pty Ltd v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 1388, considered.

CORDOSA v SA POWER NETWORKS

[2022] SASC 48

CIVIL

1. On 23 November 2021, I made orders approving the settlement of the representative action brought by the applicant on behalf of a group against the respondent following a bushfire on the Yorke Peninsula in November 2019. These are my reasons for doing so.

The Fire

1. On 20 November 2019, a bushfire commenced near a water tower at 132 Stansbury Road, Yorketown, in South Australia. Before it was contained, the fire burnt over 5,000 hectares, destroying eleven houses, fencing, livestock and farming infrastructure. On the day, the South Australian Country Fire Service had determined that the weather conditions were in the “Catastrophic” range, with temperatures expected to exceed 40°C, with mean wind speeds of 52 km/h, gusting to over 70km/h. Relative humidity was 7%.

2. There is no disagreement between the parties that the fire was caused by the failure of a lug which connected the centre phase bridging conductor to the transformer terminal on a stobie pole, which forms part of the Yorketown feeder 11kV three-phase distribution line. Arcing between the conductor and the transformer terminal caused the emission of molten particles, which ignited dry grass at the base of the pole. The fire spread quickly. 

The applicant’s case

1. The applicant’s claim relies on negligence, breach of statutory duty and nuisance. He alleges that the respondent owed a duty of care to the applicant to ensure that all parts of the powerline were safe and operated safely in the foreseeable weather conditions so as to avoid causing personal injury, property damage or economic loss. He further alleges that the fire unreasonably interfered with the use or enjoyment by the applicant of his interest in land and that he suffered a nuisance created by the respondent. In particular, the applicant says that the respondent failed to:

   •              Design and/or install the lug correctly;

   •              Inspect or maintain the powerline to ensure that the lug and/or its connection to the transformer did not fail;

   •              Have adequate systems for the replacement of infrastructure at risk of failure; and

   •              To adjust the operating settings on the automatic circuit recloser on the powerline to reduce the fault clearance time and/or to disable the reclose function.

2. While the respondent accepts that its assets caused the fire, it denies that the fire was caused by its negligence. Issues in respect of the respondent’s…