(Re Cassar) Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee v James Patrick and Co Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor [2005] NSWDDT 60

(Re Cassar) Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee v James Patrick and Co Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor [2005] NSWDDT 60

Because Mr Cassar's asbestosis was treated as divisible and SIFC did not establish that the asbestos related pleural disease was indivisible, Patricks could contribute only to the divided liability representing 38 per cent of Mr Cassar's damage. Within that relevant liability, SIFC and Patricks had equal causal contributions, but Patricks bore greater relative culpability; therefore Patricks was responsible for 85 per cent of the relevant $60,800 liability, plus interest, producing judgment for $60,625.60.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Contribution Under S 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee against Patricks in the sum of $60,625.60, with costs.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Exposure' 'asbestosis' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'apportionment of Liability' 'divisible Damage' 'interest' 'costs']
['tort Law' 'dust Diseases' 'civil Procedure'] ['asbestos Exposure' 'asbestosis' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'apportionment of Liability' 'divisible Damage' 'interest' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Cross Claim for Contribution Under S 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Patricks should contribute to SIFC under s5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 in respect of the judgment and costs recovered by Mr Spero Cassar against SIFC.' "Whether Mr Cassar's asbestos-related conditions were divisible or indivisible for the purposes of contribution." 'How responsibility between SIFC and Patricks should be apportioned having regard to relative blameworthiness and causal potency.' 'Whether SIFC should recover interest and costs from Patricks.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Cassar's asbestosis was treated as divisible and SIFC did not establish that the asbestos related pleural disease was indivisible, Patricks could contribute only to the divided liability representing 38 per cent of Mr Cassar's damage. Within that relevant liability, SIFC and Patricks had equal causal contributions, but Patricks bore greater relative culpability; therefore Patricks was responsible for 85 per cent of the relevant $60,800 liability, plus interest, producing judgment for $60,625.60.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee against Patricks in the sum of $60,625.60, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee against Patricks in the sum of $60,625.60.' 'Patricks to pay the costs of Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee.']