Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Limited [2008] NSWDDT 18

Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Limited [2008] NSWDDT 18

The Tribunal found that the asbestos cement roofing sheets demolished in 1970 and 1971 probably contained Wittenoom crocidolite sold by Midalco to Hardies after September 1965, that the released crocidolite fibre caused Mrs Dunn's mesothelioma, and that by June 1965 CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited knew or ought to have known of a foreseeable risk that children exposed even transitorily to crocidolite could contract mesothelioma. Because Australian Blue Asbestos created the risk by selling crocidolite for building products, because the class of affected children was not impermissibly indeterminate, and because the Wittenoom mine should have been closed no later than 30 June 1965 with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Contribution Pursuant to S 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 Arising From Settlement of Asbestos Related Mesothelioma Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for Amaca Pty Limited against CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited jointly for 50 per cent of the plaintiff's damages, plus interest from the date of payment to her.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'foreseeability' 'duty of Care' 'causation' 'proximity' 'breach of Duty' 'apportionment' 'settlement Reasonableness']
['torts' 'negligence' 'dust Diseases' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors'] ['asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'foreseeability' 'duty of Care' 'causation' 'proximity' 'breach of Duty' 'apportionment' 'settlement Reasonableness']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Cross Claim for Contribution Pursuant to S 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 Arising From Settlement of Asbestos Related Mesothelioma Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether crocidolite supplied by Australian Blue Asbestos Ltd, now Midalco Pty Limited, was included in the asbestos cement roofing sheets to which Mrs Dunn was exposed.' "Whether Mrs Dunn's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos fibres liberated from the asbestos cement sheets removed from her parents' home." 'Whether CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited owed Mrs Dunn a duty of care, including whether the risk of childhood exposure causing mesothelioma was reasonably foreseeable and whether there was sufficient proximity.' 'Whether CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited breached any duty of care by continuing production at Wittenoom rather than closing the mine.' 'Whether CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited would, if sued, have been liable to Mrs Dunn for the same damage for the purposes of contribution.' 'What contribution by CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited to Amaca Pty Ltd was just and equitable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the asbestos cement roofing sheets demolished in 1970 and 1971 probably contained Wittenoom crocidolite sold by Midalco to Hardies after September 1965, that the released crocidolite fibre caused Mrs Dunn's mesothelioma, and that by June 1965 CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited knew or ought to have known of a foreseeable risk that children exposed even transitorily to crocidolite could contract mesothelioma. Because Australian Blue Asbestos created the risk by selling crocidolite for building products, because the class of affected children was not impermissibly indeterminate, and because the Wittenoom mine should have been closed no later than 30 June 1965 with...

Court Disposition

Verdict for Amaca Pty Limited against CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited jointly for 50 per cent of the plaintiff's damages, plus interest from the date of payment to her.

Orders

  • ["Verdict for Amaca Pty Limited against CSR Limited and Midalco Pty Limited jointly for 50 per cent of the plaintiff's damages, plus interest from the date of payment to her." 'The parties were directed to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the reasons.' 'The Tribunal stated it would hear the parties on...