In July 2025, the high court dismissed a claim against the defendant and confirmed that the presumption of negligence in section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act does not apply if no credible evidence of the cause of the fire is adduced.

The claimant alleged that the fire, which destroyed her rural homestead, started when the meter box in her kitchen burst. She pleaded that the defendant was negligent in five respects:

  • Not displaying warning signs near the meter;
  • Inadequate inspection and maintenance of poles and cables;
  • Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harm;
  • Tardy response to reported faults; and
  • Absence of safety mechanisms to stop dangerous current flow.

She relied on section 25, which deems a licensee negligent for damage caused by induction or electrolysis, or electricity generated, transmitted or distributed by the licensee.

The defendant produced credible evidence that the source of the fire was unknown and there was cable integrity in the meter box. Its technical official inspected the scene on the day of the incident and recorded that no eyewitness was present when the flames ignited. The expert’s evidence was that the miniature circuit breaker had not tripped, and strong winds had accelerated the spread of the fire.

A separate report submitted by the claimant’s assessor acknowledged that the origin of the fire could not be established.

The court considered the two mutually destructive versions. It found material contradictions in the claimant’s evidence, notably the discrepancy between her trial testimony and her assessor’s report. It held that the technical evidence was more cogent.

Claimants relying on section 25 bear the onus of proving that the cause of the fire was electricity supplied by the defendant. In this instance, there was no proof that any lack of warning signs, maintenance practices, or safety devices was related to the cause of the fire, nor was there evidence that a response delay caused any loss. In the absence of such proof, the deeming provision in section 25 did not apply and could not be relied on by the claimant.

The claim was dismissed, each party to bear its own costs.

The judgment is a reminder that section 25 does only creates strict liability where credible evidence is placed before the court that the damage was caused by induction, electrolysis or electricity which was generated, transmitted or distributed by the licensee sued.