Anderson v Ausgrid [2015] NSWSC 1308

Procedural Posture

Common Law Negligence Claim for Property Damage Caused by Fire / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

1. 1 ["Whether the fire that destroyed the plaintiffs' home was caused by the defendant's defective installation of a replacement meter." 'Whether the plaintiffs proved causation on the balance of probabilities despite being unable to show precisely how the fire started.' "Whether contributory negligence was established by the plaintiffs' alleged failure to inspect the meter box and electrical installation." 'Whether the defendant could rely on an exclusion clause in the Standard Form Customer Supply Contract that had not been pleaded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs proved on the balance of probabilities that the fire was caused by the defendant's negligent installation of the replacement meter: the likely mechanism was an inadequately secured connection that increased resistance, generated heat, caused arcing and ignited the fire. The competing hypothesis that the fire began from cable rubbing at the meter box port was rejected on the evidence of the contemporaneous inspection and expert evidence. Because the defendant accepted responsibility for the installation work, factual causation and liability were established, contributory negligence failed, and the unpleaded exclusion clause could not be relied upon.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

Orders

• ['Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $819,676.50 plus pre-judgment interest to the date of entry of judgment, as agreed or determined by me.' 'Direct the parties to notify my Associate of any agreed figure for interest or, failing agreement, the figure proposed by each party, and the contentions in support,...