Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 28) - [2013] VSC 523

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4788 of 2009

CAROL ANN MATTHEWS	Plaintiff
V
SPI ELECTRICITY PTY LTD (ACN 064 651 118) & ORS (According to the attached schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 September 2013
DATE OF RULING:	1 October 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 28)
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 523	Amended 2 October 2013

---

EVIDENCE – Re-opening of the Plaintiff’s case – Tender of fresh evidence – Overriding consideration of interests of justice.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Richter QC with Mr T Tobin SC Mr A J Keogh SC Mr L W L Armstrong & Ms M Szydzik	Maurice Blackburn
For SPI Electricity Pty Ltd	Mr J Beach QC with Mr P H Solomon SC Mr B Quinn SC Mr D Farrands Mr C Parkinson & Mr J Kirkwood	Herbert Freehills Smith
For USC	Mr R Ray QC with Ms E Brimer	Holman Fenwick Willan
For the State parties	Mr C M Caleo SC with Mr P E Anastassiou SC Ms W A Harris SC Mr S A O’Meara SC Mr P Zappia Ms A L Robertson Dr M D Rush Mr N McAteer & Mr A D Pound Ms J Firkin Mr J Heeley	Norton Rose Fullbright Australia

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This application concerns whether Mrs Matthews should be permitted to re-open her case to tender a coach screw found by a metal detector in June of this year near pole 39 on the Pentadeen Spur.

Mrs Matthews alleges that on Black Saturday the conductor close to pole 39 of the Pentadeen Spur broke and then, whilst still attached at pole 38, struck the ground close to that pole and ignited the Kilmore East-Kinglake fire.

Pole 39 was burnt down in the course of the fire. Photographs[1] of pole 39 were taken shortly after it fell. It is not in issue that, by the time pole 39 was photographed lying on the ground, the pole top cap was secured by two coach screws – one effectively flush with the pole and one protruding from the pole top assembly; the other coach screw was missing.
[1]VPO.6000.0002.5125.

Mrs Matthews’ application is opposed by SPI and UAM who argue that it is too late and that the evidence is of little or no probative value.

I have decided to grant leave to Mrs Matthews to re-open her case and tender the screw for the following reasons.

History and circumstances leading to recovery of the coach screw

In the course of the trial, in Ruling No 22[2] I directed Mrs Matthews to file further better and particulars of item (vi) of the particulars to paragraph 19 of her statement of claim. Prior to that ruling it had been unclear on Mrs Matthews' pleadings, at least to SPI, as to whether her claim in relation to replacement of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 28) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] VSC 523
Decision Date: 1 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 28) involved the plaintiff, Matthews, who brought an action against SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for injuries sustained at work. The dispute centred around the admissibility of fresh evidence tendered by the plaintiff during the trial. Matthews sought to reopen his case to introduce additional evidence after the conclusion of the defendant's case, a request that SPI opposed. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether Matthews’ fresh evidence should be admitted.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the plaintiff's case should be reopened to allow the tender of fresh evidence and, if so, whether this was in the overriding consideration of the interests of justice. Matthews argued that the fresh evidence was critical to his case and had only recently become available, thus justifying the reopening. SPI, on the other hand, contended that the delay in presenting the evidence undermined the integrity of the proceedings and that Matthews had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission found that the fresh evidence was indeed significant and had the potential to impact the outcome of the case. It noted that Matthews had acted promptly in tendering the evidence once it became available, and that there was no evidence of bad faith or delay on his part. Weighing the interests of justice against the need for finality in proceedings, the Commission concluded that reopening the case to admit the fresh evidence was warranted. The Commission's decision balanced Matthews’ right to a fair hearing with the overarching principle of justice, ultimately favouring the admission of the new evidence.

Orders