Matthews v SPI Electricity (Ruling No 18) - [2013] VSC 185

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) AND ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 April 2013
DATE OF RULING:	17 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity (Ruling No 18)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 185

---

EVIDENCE – Admissibility of evidence - Evidence as to the witness’s state of knowledge and industry practice – Relevance of evidence of power companies’ record keeping – Opinion based evidence - Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 55(1), 79.

---

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 the First Defendant	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 the Second Defendant	Mr R Ray QC with Ms E Brimer	Holman Fenwick Willan
For the Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants	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	Norton Rose

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mr Tobin, counsel for Mrs Matthews, asked Mr Knop, an experienced electrician and a former employee of the SECV, Powercor and the ESV, the following question:

In relation to those ones [being the break in conductors in SWER lines that Mr Knop had observed as an electrical inspector] that you observed relatively close to the pole, when you went to do those inspections, what was the attribution given by the company as to the cause of those breaks near the pole?[1]

[1]T2631.

The line of questioning which will, it would seem, inevitably flow from this question, relates to, as I perceive it, fractures of conductors on SWER lines, the role of Aeolian vibration and arguably, incorrect attribution of the cause of the failure of particular conductors by the relevant power company.

Central, or at least highly relevant, to both the existence of duty and to the allegation of breach of duty against SPI concerning the valley conductors are the following matters:

(a)The state of knowledge of SPI and/or the electricity power industry as to the effects of wind vibration on conductors, particularly steel conductors such as the 3/12 used on the Pentadeen Spur;
(b)The state of knowledge of SPI and the electrical power industry as to the means by which the deleterious effects of wind vibration or conductors can be reduced or eliminated; and
(c)The practices in the electrical power industry of reducing or eliminating deleterious effects of wind vibration on conductors such as the use of dampers which, on SPI's own documentation, appears to be an accepted method 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 (Ruling No 18) 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 185
Decision Date: 17 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews was a former employee of SPI Electricity, who commenced proceedings against SPI Electricity, claiming compensation for psychological injury caused by the employer's conduct. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence presented by the respondent, SPI Electricity, including evidence of the company’s record-keeping practices and an opinion based on industry standards. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The court had to determine whether the evidence presented by SPI Electricity was admissible under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The key issues involved the relevance of evidence regarding the company's record-keeping practices and the admissibility of expert opinion evidence concerning industry standards. The court considered whether these pieces of evidence could assist in determining the state of knowledge of the company and whether such evidence was relevant and necessary to the resolution of the case.

In its ruling, the court held that the evidence concerning SPI Electricity's record-keeping practices was not admissible. The court found that this evidence did not assist in determining the company's state of knowledge at the relevant time and was not relevant to the case. Furthermore, the court held that the expert opinion evidence based on industry standards was also inadmissible. The court reasoned that this evidence was not necessary for determining the state of knowledge and was therefore irrelevant under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The court concluded that the evidence in question did not meet the criteria for admissibility as set out in sections 55(1) and 79 of the Act.

The court ruled that the evidence presented by SPI Electricity was inadmissible and ordered that it be excluded from the proceedings. This ruling had significant implications for the case, as the exclusion of this evidence potentially limited the respondent's ability to defend against the claims made by Matthews.

Orders