CSR Limited & Anor v Thompson; Thompson v CSR Limited & Anor [2003] NSWCA 329

CSR Limited & Anor v Thompson; Thompson v CSR Limited & Anor [2003] NSWCA 329

The Court dismissed the appeal and application for leave to cross-appeal. The appellants were not granted leave to re-argue Sullivan v Gordon damages as the matter had been recently resolved by a special five-member bench, and there was no potential overlap or double recovery with claims under the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA). The respondent was not entitled to damages for fear of contracting mesothelioma experienced before diagnosis, as the cause of action was not complete until physical harm (mesothelioma) was established and the fear did not constitute a recognised psychiatric injury.

Parties
Appellant/first Opponent/first Cross Respondent: CSR Limited; Second Appellant/second Opponent/second Cross Respondent: Midalco Pty Limited (Formerly known as Australian Blue Asbestos Pty Limited); Respondent/claimant/cross Appellant: John Leonard Thompson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal (points of Law) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Asbestos Related Disease, Personal Injury, Damages (sullivan V Gordon), Mental Harm (emotional Distress), Statutory Interpretation
Negligence Tort Law Asbestos Related Disease Personal Injury Damages (sullivan V Gordon) Mental Harm (emotional Distress) Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CSR Limited

Appellant/first Opponent/first Cross Respondent

Midalco Pty Limited (Formerly known as Australian Blue Asbestos Pty Limited)

Second Appellant/second Opponent/second Cross Respondent

John Leonard Thompson

Respondent/claimant/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal (points of Law) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge wrongly allowed Sullivan v Gordon damages for loss of capacity to care for disabled wife after death
  2. 2 Whether appellants should be granted leave to reargue Sullivan v Gordon
  3. 3 Whether there is an overlap between damages under the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) and Sullivan v Gordon damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal and application for leave to cross-appeal. The appellants were not granted leave to re-argue Sullivan v Gordon damages as the matter had been recently resolved by a special five-member bench, and there was no potential overlap or double recovery with claims under the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA). The respondent was not entitled to damages for fear of contracting mesothelioma experienced before diagnosis, as the cause of action was not complete until physical harm (mesothelioma) was established and the fear did not constitute a recognised psychiatric injury.

Court Disposition

Appeal and application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • By consent, costs are to be dealt with by written submissions after judgment; respondent to file written submissions on costs within 14 days and appellants to respond within 14 days after receipt of respondent's submissions