A Northern Tasmanian plant nursery suing TasNetworks for more than $2.5 million over equipment damage caused by a power surge in 2010 has appealed to the full bench of the Supreme Court after its claim was rejected.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Brocklands, based at Winkleigh, south of Sidmouth, claimed its potting machine - a device critical to the operation of the business - was rendered unusable for two months after it was damaged following a power outage on December 10, 2010.
A branch fell across a high voltage power line at Flowery Gully, causing a recloser - designed to cut and reconnect power during outages - to trip at Glengarry.
Brocklands claimed this trip caused a power surge "between two and five times the normal operating voltage", which passed through high voltage conductors and headed to a pole where it entered the low voltage system "because the pole was configured incorrectly". The surge then allegedly damaged the potting machine.
IN OTHER NEWS:
The business' automated potting machine could not operate between 16 December and 23 February, 2011.
In its initial statement of claim, Brocklands alleged Aurora Energy - which operated the power grid at the time before handing it over to TasNetworks in 2014 - had failed various clauses in the Tasmanian Electricity Code.
They included an alleged failure to maintain a large enough distance between the high voltage bushing and low voltage conductor on the pole, a failure of the earthing system and the arc gap rods being covered in paint as among the reasons for high voltage entering the low voltage system at the pole.
The earthing resistance was set too high, Brocklands claimed, causing the surge to choose the low voltage conductor as its pathway rather than dissipating to earth.
The business owners also claimed there had been repeated power failures at their property since they moved there in 1998, which they alleged was evidence of poorly installed and maintained equipment.
Over the course of a 14-day trial last year, the Supreme Court heard evidence from a range of experts in the field of power networks and electrical systems.
TasNetworks told the court they maintain about 50,000 transformers and it would cost $3000 to $5000 each to check and change the position of HV and LV earths, which the court found was an "unreasonable" obligation.
TasNetworks also disputed whether it could be proven that the pole was responsible for the business' equipment failure.
Justice Gregory Geason described Brocklands' case as "circumstantial", reliant on "inadmissible opinion", and that critical elements of the business' claim lacked evidence.
"There was no evidence of any specialist diagnosis of the damage to the appliances, nor of the repairs required; there are no invoices disclosing the work done, nor any reports from the repairers," he said in his judgement last week.
"There is nothing to show whether a manufacturer's fault was the cause of failure."
Brocklands appealed these findings and submitted a new statement of claim, including that the circumstantial evidence could prove negligence, and that the segments of evidence should not be isolated from each other.
TasNetworks applied to have Brocklands provide $250,000 security for the appeal to proceed to the full bench, but Chief Justice Alan Blow found the appeal "could well succeed" and given the amount of money already spent on the case, the appeal costs would be "small beer".
The appeal will proceed at a date to be set.