Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 34) - [2014] VSC 40

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 RULING:

21 February 2014

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 34)

MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2014] VSC 40

---

EVIDENCE – Use of model of electricity pole which fallen conductor was strung from – Relevance – Scope of application of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 53 – Application of common law to in-court demonstrations – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 1, 7, 8, 9, 49.
-

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 &
Mr L Stanistreet 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
Ms J Firkin
Mr A D Pound
Mr J Brereton
Mr L Brown
Ms J Swanwick &
Mr J Heeley
Norton Rose Fullbright Australia

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1.We are near the end of the trial but points still arise about which the parties cannot agree. This time it is about whether Mrs Matthews should be allowed to use a scale model of pole 38 as an aid in one of the forthcoming concurrent evidence sessions.
2.An important issue in this trial is whether the settings applied by SPI to a fault protection device known as an oil circuit recloser (OCR) on Black Saturday were appropriate. In particular, should the “re-close” function of the OCR have been suppressed? The next round of expert concurrent evidence (comprising members of Conclaves 6A, 6B and 6C) will deal with this issue.
3.In determining this point it is important, if possible, to determine the sequence of events surrounding the fall of the length of the broken conductor that remained attached to pole 38.
4.A 1.8 by 0.9 metre scaled model of pole 38 and its surrounds has been created by Maddigans, a surveying company, at the request of Mrs Matthews’ solicitors. Mrs Matthews proposes to use the model in the course of the OCR concurrent evidence session. Her lawyers say that this model will assist the experts and the Court. SPI objects to the use of the model contending, primarily, that it raises the prospect of Mrs Matthews’ experts expounding new theories as to the manner in which the conductor fell.
5.I…

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 34) 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: [2014] VSC 40
Decision Date: 21 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews sued SPI Electricity Pty Ltd over an incident involving a fallen conductor from an electricity pole that resulted in severe injuries. The dispute was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether a model of the electricity pole, used by the plaintiff to demonstrate the circumstances of the incident, was admissible as evidence. The court had to determine the relevance of the model and whether its use complied with the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and the Civil Procedure Act 20010 (Vic). Specifically, the court needed to consider if the application of s 53 of the Evidence Act was appropriate and whether common law principles applied to in-court demonstrations were applicable.

The court held that the model was relevant and admissible as it assisted in illustrating the sequence of events leading to the accident. The court found that the Evidence Act s 53, which allows for the use of models, diagrams, or illustrations, was applicable. The court also considered the common law, recognising that such demonstrations could be permissible if they were used to clarify the issues in the case. The court concluded that the model was a helpful tool for understanding the technical aspects of the incident and did not prejudice the defendant. Therefore, the use of the model was deemed appropriate and the evidence was admitted.

As a result of this decision, the plaintiff was able to proceed with their case using the model as evidence. The court's ruling supported the use of visual aids in complex technical cases, provided they are relevant and not prejudicial. The final orders of the court were to admit the model of the electricity pole as evidence in the trial, allowing the plaintiff to continue with their case.

Orders