Matthews v SPI Electricity (Ruling No 22) - [2013] VSC 221

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:	1 May 2013
DATE OF RULING:	3 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity & Ors (Ruling No 22)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 221

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Particulars – Scope of the allegation contained in particulars – Opportunity to meet the case put by an opponent.

---

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 BR Beach QC with Mr P H Solomon SC Mr B F Quinn SC Mr D J Farrands Mr C O Parkinson & Mr J H Kirkwood	Herbert Freehills Smith
For the Second Defendant	Mr R Ray QC with Ms E M 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

A body of evidence relevant to the condition and appearance of the Valley Span and its infrastructure has been admitted into evidence. It is relevant to the background concerning the failure of the conductor and to the issue of causation. However, at least to my mind, it is also relevant to particular (vi) of the particulars of breach in paragraph 19 of Mrs Matthews’ statement of claim which alleges that the Valley Span conductor should have been replaced prior to 2009.

During the course of Mrs Matthews’ case I became concerned that SPI and its legal team had not appreciated that this body of evidence, and other evidence which may emerge concerning the condition and appearance of the conductor, was being led in relation to this third basis. That concern proved to be correct. SPI said, and I accept, that it treated particular (vi) as “conclusionary” in light of earlier particulars, thus anticipating that the case in relation to replacement of the Valley Span conductor would be informed by those particulars preceding particular (vi), specifically particulars (i)-(v) which are limited in scope.

I did not share that view. I had assumed that the particular was, in effect, stand alone and would support a wide body of evidence relevant to the conductor, its appearance, history, location, inspection regime, maintenance, repair and environmental impacts upon the span.

It was imperative that this potential confusion be resolved as soon as practicable and, as a result, I directed that Mrs Matthews provide further and better particulars of particular (vi) in the hope that this would provide clarification as to…

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 22) 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 221
Decision Date: 3 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews brought a proceeding against SPI Electricity, seeking compensation for injuries sustained while working on a power line. The central issue before the court was the adequacy of the particulars provided by Matthews in his statement of claim. Specifically, SPI Electricity argued that the particulars did not sufficiently outline the nature of the injuries or the circumstances surrounding the incident, thereby failing to give them an adequate opportunity to prepare a defence. The court considered the requirements for particulars under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, focusing on whether the details provided were sufficient to enable SPI Electricity to respond appropriately to the allegations.

The court examined the scope of the allegations contained in the particulars and the necessity for these to be specific enough to inform the defendant of the nature and basis of the claim. It was held that while particulars do not need to be exhaustive, they must be sufficient to put the defendant in a position where they can reasonably understand and respond to the allegations. The court found that Matthews' particulars were deficient in this regard, as they did not provide adequate details about the specific injuries or the events leading to them, thus failing to offer SPI Electricity a fair opportunity to meet the case.

Consequently, the court ruled that the particulars were insufficient, and Matthews was required to amend his statement of claim to include more detailed information about the injuries and the circumstances of the incident. The court granted Matthews a period within which to file the amended particulars, but warned that failure to adequately address the deficiencies could result in the dismissal of the proceeding. The final orders directed Matthews to provide the amended particulars within the specified timeframe, with the case to be reviewed to assess compliance with the court's ruling.

Orders