Matthews v SPI Electricity (Ruling No 24)

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:	20 May 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matthews v SPI Electricity & Ors (Ruling No 24)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 269

---

EVIDENCE – Expert opinion evidence based on specialised knowledge – Admissibility – Status of the “Basis rule” – Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 79, 56.

---

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 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

1. I permitted Senior Counsel for Mrs Matthews to lead evidence, over the objection of Senior Counsel for SPI, of Mr Walley’s opinion as to whether the presence of a damper on the Pentadeen Spur line would have made any material difference to the failure on Black Saturday.

1. Senior Counsel for Mrs Matthews asked the following question:

Mr Walley, there's evidence in this case that there was a pitting on this conductor near the helical fit at pole 39 and with the passage of time there was a propagation of this pitting, so as to result in fracture of one strand and then fracture of another strand with the first strand fracturing some months before the second strand, and then after the second strand fracturing a ductile fracture of the third strand, and that the pitting that was at the point where the fractures occurred, occurred many years prior to February 2009. If that be so, had there been a damper fitted to this line some years prior to 2009, do you have an opinion as to whether that would have affected in any way the rate of the deterioration and ultimate fracture of the conductor?[1]

[1]T 4650-4651.

1. After objection, the question was put again as follows:

Putting those facts without repeating them, if in fact that was the situation – I will repeat them in part: an event which caused some pitting or microscopic fracture which propagated with time, so that there was a fracture of one strand of the conductor some many months before February 2007 [sic], that another…