A barrister for a pole inspection company claims workers were restricted by Powercor in relation to what they could do and record.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Dr Michael Rush, QC, said during his opening address in the Supreme Court trial involving the victims of The Sisters/Garvoc bushfire that inspectors for service provider Electrix did not have a "blank canvas" when they inspected Powercor's poles and assets.
A bushfire on St Patrick's Day last year was sparked after a rotten power pole fell at The Sisters.
The pole was inspected less than four months before the fire and victims are taking legal action to recoup more than $19 million in losses.
Dr Rush said it was not possible for inspectors to "keep a watch" on pole No. 4 on the Sparrow Spur line after alarm bells sounded when it recorded a sound wood reading of just 70mm in 2005.
He said Electrix was restricted by its contract with Powercor and guidelines in an inspection manual.
Dr Rush also took issue with the use of the terms defects, cavities and moderate winds so far during the trial.
He said unless defects fitted into certain categories, determined by guidelines they were not defects - such as a pole lean needing to be more than 10 degrees before it became a defect.
The barrister said the word cavity was also used 29 times by the lawyer for the plaintiffs on the first day of this trial, when describing the internal condition of pole No. 4.
Dr Rush said Electrix did not accept that there was a substantial cavity within the pole, such as a void or a hollow at the time it was inspected.
He said it would be claimed there was a mixture of sound wood and rot, but not a substantial void or hollow at the point of failure.
Read more:
The barrister said that vital section of the pole had burnt during the fire.
"Therefore, is very difficult if not impossible for any person to opine upon what the condition of that part of the pole was before the fire," he said.
Dr Rush said that during the pole top inspection on November 30, 2017, that Electrix's inspectors could not see or analyse the pole as it was now being examined.
"Electrix's inspectors were not engaged in the kind of forensic examination of the pole which is now occurring in this case. They did not have the assistance of structural and mechanical engineers or termite experts or wood rot experts when they were performing their inspections," he said.
"The inspectors did not conduct their inspections with the benefit of hindsight knowing when, here and how this pole might or would fail. These are all things that we now know but they did not."
Dr Rush said Electrix's inspectors were there to do a job within the defined and confined parameters of the inspection processes set down by and to assist Powercor.
"Our submission is that when proper regard is had to all the facts and context to the experience and background of Electrix inspectors and the circumstances and manner of failure of pole No. 4, Your Honour would not find that there was any want of reasonable care by Electrix in this case," he said.
Energy Safe Victoria team leader Edward Micallef said during evidence that Electrix was used by ESV last year to conduct field audits on assets.
Mr Micalleff was a long-time employee of the State Electricity Commission Victoria and Powercor before joining ESV.
It was previously claimed by lawyers for the plaintiffs that the pole top inspection of pole No. 4 on November 30, 2017, took just 90 seconds to complete.
Powercor claims it follows regulations accepted and approved by Energy Safe Victoria.
Have you signed up to The Standard's daily newsletter and breaking news emails? You can register below and make sure you are up to date with everything that's happening in the south-west.