Perry v Powercor Australia Ltd

Case [2011] VSC 308


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 330 of 2009

TRACEY JOANNE PERRY

TERRENCE RAYMOND SAGAR

Firstnamed Plaintiff

Secondnamed Plaintiff

v
POWERCOR AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 064 651 109) Defendant

---

JUDGE:

ROBSON J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

24 June 2011

DATE OF RULING:

4 July 2011

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Perry v Powercor

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2011] VSC 308

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for inspection of discovered reports on cause of fire at Coleraine on Black Saturday – Defendant’s solicitor informed that fire allegedly caused by defendant’s power line – Solicitor anticipated litigation against defendant - Solicitor consults CEO of defendant and instructed to carry out investigation – Solicitor seeks reports on cause of fire allegedly caused by defendant’s power line – Solicitor says purpose of reports was to give legal advice to defendant - defendant needed information in reports for a range of purposes – Duty of defendant to report defendant’s part in cause of fire to Energy Safe Victoria under the Electricity Safety Act 1998 – Duty of officers of defendant to act with reasonable degree of care and diligence under s 180 Corporations Act 2001 to ascertain defendant’s part in cause of fire - Failure of defendant to prove dominant purpose was covered by legal advice or legal litigation privilege – Inspection ordered – Section 180 Corporations Act 2001;  Electricity Safety Act 1998; and ss 119 and 120 Evidence Act 2008.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs Mr P J Riordan SC with
Dr S B McNicol
Maddens
For the Defendant Mr A J Kelly SC with
Mr D G Guidolin
Wotton + Kearney

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

  1. On Black Saturday in February 2009,[1] devastating bush fires ravaged Victoria causing death and destruction on a massive scale.  One of theses fires occurred to the north west of Coleraine causing damage to approximately seven hundred hectares of farming land and severely injuring a farmer.[2]  Powercor is the distributor of electricity to Western Victoria and the operator of an electricity network through which it delivers electricity to domestic or residential and business consumers, including in and around Coleraine.[3]

    [1]7 February 2009.

    [2]The injury to the farmer is referred to in Powercor’s report to Energy Safe Victoria of 8 February 2011, exhibit JFM-4B.

    [3]Affidavit of Kaye-Frances Rands of 28 April 2011 (Rands 28 April affidavit).

  1. Tracy Perry and Terrence Sagar, as representative of a class of property owners, have taken proceedings against Powercor[4] claiming damages for breaches of statutory duties and general duties of care in relation to loss and damage to property as a result of the bushfire at Coleraine.  They allege that a faulty Powercor power line that passed over a farming property started the bushfire and Powercor was negligent in its maintenance of the powerline.

    [4]13 March 2009.

  1. In this proceeding, Powercor discovered several reports on the cause of the fire at Coleraine.  Powercor claims legal privilege for these reports.  It claims…

Continue reading Perry v Powercor Australia Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Perry v Powercor Australia Ltd [2011] VSC 308
Case
[2011] VSC 308
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Perry v Powercor Australia Ltd, the plaintiffs sought an inspection of certain reports prepared by the defendant, Powercor Australia Ltd, in relation to a fire that occurred in Coleraine on Black Saturday. The plaintiffs alleged that the fire was caused by a power line belonging to Powercor. The defendant claimed that the reports were protected by legal professional privilege and were not subject to inspection. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the reports should be inspected.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the reports were protected by legal professional privilege, which would prevent their inspection. The court considered the nature of the reports, the purpose for which they were prepared, and whether they were created for the dominant purpose of giving legal advice or for the purpose of litigation. The court also examined the duties of the defendant under the Electricity Safety Act 1998 and the Corporations Act 2001.

The court found that the defendant had failed to prove that the dominant purpose of the reports was to provide legal advice or for the purposes of litigation. The reports were prepared for a range of purposes, including the defendant’s duty to report its involvement in the cause of the fire to Energy Safe Victoria under the Electricity Safety Act 1998, and the duty of the defendant’s officers to act with reasonable care and diligence under section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001. The court held that the reports were not protected by legal professional privilege and ordered that they be inspected by the plaintiffs. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs’ costs, including any reserved costs, be paid by Powercor.

The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that reports prepared in the course of legal proceedings are not used to shield information that is relevant to the resolution of the underlying dispute. The court's finding that the reports were not protected by legal professional privilege reinforces the principle that legal professional privilege is not an absolute privilege and is subject to exceptions. The court's order for inspection of the reports will enable the plaintiffs to obtain important information that may assist them in proving their case.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find that the reports are not protected by legal professional privilege. I therefore order, on the plaintiffs’ claim for inspection, that the disputed reports be produced. I order that the plaintiffs’ costs including any reserved costs be paid by Powercor.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.