“Shock claim short-circuited”: Electric-shock claim dismissed on credibility gaps, photo metadata and no contemporaneous proof

Bye v Hend & Anor [2025] ACTSC 555
Balla AJ, 23 December 2025

Summary

The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the ACT Supreme Court (the Court) against the landlord and managing agent in respect of alleged injuries following an electric shock while activating a light switch at a residential rental property (the Property).

The key issue in dispute was whether the electric shock incident had occurred as alleged, in light of inconsistencies within the plaintiff’s evidence.

The Court ultimately found the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained an electric shock and entered verdicts in favour of the defendants. The Court made multiple adverse findings as to the plaintiff’s credit and reliability, including that her evidence would not be accepted unless corroborated by independent contemporaneous material (of which there was none).

The managing agent was represented by HBA Legal.

Background

It was common ground that the plaintiff leased the Property from the landlord through the managing agent in about February 2020.
The plaintiff claimed that, on 25 June 2020, while turning on a light switch, she sustained an electric shock which purportedly caused loss of consciousness and, subsequently, a fall (the Incident). Relevantly, the plaintiff’s evidence was unclear as to the mechanism of the Incident.
The case initially pleaded was that, as at or around February 2020, the plaintiff had identified issues with the subject light switch and reported this to the managing agent. However, prior to the hearing, the plaintiff conceded that there were no identifiable issues with the subject light switch as at February 2020 and, instead, alleged that it had “deteriorated over time”.

A central feature of the case was the plaintiff’s evidence that she had reported defects with the subject light switch to the managing agent on multiple occasions between February 2020 and the Incident date, and that the managing agent/landlord failed to take any steps to repair the subject light switch in spite of this knowledge.

Key Issues

The Court considered the following key issues:

• Whether the plaintiff established (on the balance of probabilities) that the alleged Incident occurred;
• Whether the plaintiff’s account of the Incident was sufficiently supported by independent contemporaneous evidence (including documentary and metadata evidence); and
• If the Incident had occurred, whether there was a basis to find that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of a relevant defect and failed to take any steps to avoid the risk of harm it posed.

Determination
Issue 1 – Did the Incident occur?

The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained an electric shock for the following reasons:

• In spite of being an experienced nurse and being aware of the impact of an electric shock passing through the human body, the plaintiff did not call 000 on the date of the Incident;
• In correspondence between the plaintiff and the managing agent between 28 – 29 June 2020, the plaintiff made no mention of the Incident;
• The plaintiff’s first GP attendance following the Incident occurred on 2 July 2020, however, there were no records of the doctor having spoken to the plaintiff about the Incident; and
• While the plaintiff presented to the Emergency Department on 3 July 2020, there was no objective evidence of any injury or disability caused by an electric shock (although hospital records indicated that the plaintiff made subjective complaints).

On the basis that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Incident occurred, her case against the defendants failed.

Issue 2 – Reliability findings and documentary/metadata contradictions

The plaintiff’s evidence was not accepted given the absence of any corroboration, including contemporaneous emails, telephone records or independent witness accounts. The Court rejected various key aspects of the plaintiff’s evidence:

• The plaintiff’s claim that she reported electrical issues to the managing agent on several occasions between February 2020 and 25 June 2020 was unsupported. Documented correspondence between the plaintiff and the managing agent during that period made no mention of any electrical issues at the Property;
• The plaintiff contended that the telecommunications provider deleted emails allegedly recording her reports of electrical issues to the managing agent. However, records obtained from the provider indicated there were no issues with the email system;
• Key photographs of the subject light switch, said to have been taken around February 2020, were tendered by the plaintiff; however, the metadata dated them to 29 June 2020. The plaintiff then alleged the condition of the subject light switch as at 29 June 2020 was the same as at February 2020. Either way, this undermined the “deterioration over time” case theory and contradicted the plaintiff’s earlier concession that there was no observable defect as at February 2020; and
• The plaintiff asserted that she was unable to attend work in the days immediately following the Incident (to one of her medico-legal specialists). She also reported having been hospitalised for a few days. However, employment records indicated she attended work in person the day following the Incident and hospital records confirmed that she attended the Emergency Department about one week after the Incident and was discharged on the same day.

Issue 3 Notice/foreseeability (in the alternative)

Even if the plaintiff was capable of establishing the occurrence of the Incident, the Court indicated that her claim would fail given:

• The plaintiff failed to identify the relevant risk of harm. The fundamental proposition that the light switch deteriorated over time was contradicted by photographic evidence and the plaintiff’s oral evidence;
• Even on the assumption that, on the basis of the plaintiff’s admission, a finding was available that the subject light switch was not observably damaged in February 2020, there was no expert evidence to support a “gradual deterioration” within a 4-month period;
• There was no evidentiary foundation as to when any deterioration would have been observable such that the defendants ought to have known of it (the “cancelled inspections” premise was rejected); and
• Even if the plaintiff could establish when the defendants ought to have known of any “gradual deterioration”, there were no cancelled inspections during the four-month period, and no evidence that any inspection ought to have occurred. Accordingly, there was no basis to find the defendants ought to have known of any electrical defect.

Lessons Learnt

• While trite to say, this case is a useful reminder that a plaintiff always bears the burden of proof in establishing their claim on the balance of probabilities.
• Where credibility is in issue and there is conflicting evidence, the Court will give weight to independent, objective and/or contemporaneous evidence.
• Digital material, including metadata of photographs, may be relied upon in determining timelines or narratives.
• Without cogent evidence of when a defect becomes observable/apparent, constructive notice and breach arguments may be difficult to sustain.
• For managing agents, it is crucial to maintain a maintenance audit trail using a single log containing time-stamped acknowledgements, details of the person responsible and written completion notes as well as retaining native photos (with metadata information), file notes of phone calls, emails and inspection notes/records in defending negligence claims brought by tenants.

Contact

Download PDF here: Shock-claim-short-circuited-Electric-shock-claim-dismissed-on-credibility-gaps-photo-metadata-and-no-contemporaneous-proof.pdf 

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For any legal advice please contact us.