1. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS MR.

HUMPHREYS, AND
I APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT COMPANY, MISMO
FIRE INSURANCE, IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER. THE PLAINTIFF
COMPANY IS THE HOLDER OF A POLICY OF INSURANCE IN
RESPECT OF A FACTORY PLANT SITUATE AT 187 RIVER ROAD,
NITA CITY.
2. THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY BRINGS TO THIS COURT A CLAIM FOR
BREACH OF CONTRACT, OF WHICH IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THE
DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE IN DAMAGES. MY CLIENT DOES NOT
DENY THE EXISTANCE OR THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT
WITH THE PLAINTIFF. BUT, RATHER, MY CLIENT DENIES ANY
LIABILITY TO THE PLAINTIFF UNDER THE CONTRACT, AS WILL BE
EXPLAINED IN DUE COURSE.
3. ON THE EVENING OF 16 NOVEMBER 2013, AN INCIDENT
OCCURRED AT THE PLAINTIFFS FACTORY. THERE WAS AN
EXPLOSION. THE CONSEQUENT FIRE BURNED WITH SUCH
INTENSITY THAT IT TOOK SOME 5 HOURS TO EXTINGUISH IT.
4. THE DAMAGE TO THE FACTORY WAS SO EXTENSIVE THAT
NARROWING DOWN THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION HAS
PROVEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. INDEED, THE ONLY WITNESS
PRESENT IN THE FACTORY, MR. GEORGE AVERY, WAS KILLED,
HIS CHEST CAVITY HAVING IMPLODED DUE TO THE FORCE OF
THE EXPLOSION.
5. HOWEVER, WHAT THE DEFENCE INTENDS TO PROVE, ON
TESTING THE VERACITY OF THE PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE, IS THAT
THIS EXPLOSION WAS NOT A MERE ACCIDENT, AS HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED BUT, RATHER, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
FACTORY WAS BROUGHT ABOUT AS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT OF
ARSON. THERE ARE THREE LIMBS TO THIS ASSERTION.
6. FIRSTLY, AN ANALYSIS OF THE INCIDENT HAS REVEALED THE
EXPLOSION
WAS
CAUSED
BY
THE
PRESENCE
OF
HYDROCHLORIC ACID, A SUBSTANCE WHICH IS NOT USUALLY
COMBUSTABLE, UNLESS IT REACTS WITH FERROUS METAL OR
IS EXPOSED TO HEAT. AS MR. AVERY HAS NOTED, THIS ACID IS
NORMALLY CONTAINED WITHIN APPROPRIATE VESSELS, AS
WAS NOTED AT THE LAST SAFETY INSPECTION. THIS BEGS THE
QUESTION OF A) HOW IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE STORAGE
ROOM AND B) HOW IT CAME INTO CONTACT WITH A SOURCE OF
IGNITION.
7. SECONDLY, IT IS OF NOTE THAT THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS
DAMAGES IN THE SUM OF 1.667 MILLION, THIS SUM BEING
CONVENIENTLY APPROXIMATE TO THE MONIES REQUIRED TO
DISCHARGE THE PLAINTIFF COMPANYS LIABILITIES, OWING
400,000 IN BANK LOANS, AND HAVING INCURRED LOSSES OF
1 MILLION.
8. FINALLY, IT IS ALSO OF NOTE THAT MR. ARTHUR JACKSON, THE
MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER AND DIRECTOR OF FLINDERS
ALUMINIUM, RETAINED THE SERVICES OF THE LATE MR.
GEORGE AVERY, A MAN WHO FELT IT NECESSARY TO MISLEAD
THE PLAINTIFF AS TO HIS ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS, WHO IN

TWO PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENTS WAS SUSPECTED OF

DELIBERATELY CAUSING ARSON, AND WHOM ONE WITNESS
WILL AVER WAS OPENLY REFERRED TO AS A TORCH. AT LEAST
TWO WITNESSES AVER TO MR. AVERYS PRESENCE AT
FLINDERS FACTORY ON THE EVENING OF THE INCIDENT AND
HIS INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE WHO WAS IN
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE ORIGIN OF THE EXPLOSION. IT
WOULD SEEM THAT THE APHORISM, WHERE THERE IS SMOKE
THERE IS FIRE RINGS TRUE WHEN IT COMES TO THE LATE MR
AVERY.
9. THE DEFENDANT THUS INVITES THIS COURT TO FIND IN ITS
FAVOUR, IN THAT THE DEFANDANT IS RELIEVED OF ITS
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE POLICY OF INSURANCE UNDER
CLAUSE 9, WHICH MAKES THE POLICY VOIDABLE AT THE
DEFENDANTS INSTANCE WHERE ARSON HAS OCCURRED AS A
RESULT OF ACTIONS OF THE POLICY HOLDER OR ITS AGENTS.
10. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, NOTHING FURTHER ARISES AT THIS
TIME.