D&v Services Pty Ltd v SA Power Networks
Case
•
[2018] SASCFC 92
•4 September 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
D&v Services Pty Ltd v SA Power Networks [2018] SASCFC 92
[2018] SASCFC 92
4 September 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *D&V Services Pty Ltd v SA Power Networks*, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an appeal by D&V Services Pty Ltd (the appellant) against a finding that it had breached its duty of care to SA Power Networks (the respondent). The dispute arose from damage caused to the respondent's underground 11kV cable during demolition and remediation works undertaken by the appellant.
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the appellant breached its duty of care to the respondent. This involved determining whether the appellant's actions, specifically the excavation that damaged the cable, fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable contractor in similar circumstances, and whether the appellant had taken sufficient steps to ascertain the location of underground services.
The Court reasoned that while the appellant had obtained a "Dial Before You Dig" plan, it had not obtained the accompanying disclaimer and header sheet. This disclaimer explicitly stated that the plan was indicative only regarding cable location and depth and advised contractors to use professional services for accurate location if digging within five metres of a high voltage cable. The Court held that a reasonable contractor would have appreciated the potential danger of damaging underground cables and would have taken further steps to ascertain their precise location, particularly given the significant consequences of such damage. The appellant's failure to obtain and heed the disclaimer, and its reliance on an indicative plan without further verification, was found to be a breach of its duty of care.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Full Court upholding the primary judge's finding of a breach of duty of care by the appellant.
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the appellant breached its duty of care to the respondent. This involved determining whether the appellant's actions, specifically the excavation that damaged the cable, fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable contractor in similar circumstances, and whether the appellant had taken sufficient steps to ascertain the location of underground services.
The Court reasoned that while the appellant had obtained a "Dial Before You Dig" plan, it had not obtained the accompanying disclaimer and header sheet. This disclaimer explicitly stated that the plan was indicative only regarding cable location and depth and advised contractors to use professional services for accurate location if digging within five metres of a high voltage cable. The Court held that a reasonable contractor would have appreciated the potential danger of damaging underground cables and would have taken further steps to ascertain their precise location, particularly given the significant consequences of such damage. The appellant's failure to obtain and heed the disclaimer, and its reliance on an indicative plan without further verification, was found to be a breach of its duty of care.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Full Court upholding the primary judge's finding of a breach of duty of care by the appellant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Breach
-
Causation
-
Negligence
-
Reliance
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council v Kruse [2019] SASCFC 106
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
1
SA Power Networks v D&v Services P/L
[2017] SADC 68
Waltons Stores (interstate) Ltd v Maher
[1988] HCA 7
Sullivan v Moody
[2001] HCA 59