(Re Jones-Mashman) Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd (No. 2) [2009] NSWDDT 24

(Re Jones-Mashman) Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd (No. 2) [2009] NSWDDT 24

The Deed of Dissolution released the partners from liability and terminated any rights and obligations under the Partnership Deed, including future claims under the Partnership Act 1892. The Tribunal expressed the view that it did not have equitable jurisdiction. CSR would have been liable to the plaintiff as a tortfeasor because exposure to partnership K-Lite asbestos between April 1967 and 1970 materially contributed to the plaintiff's mesothelioma, but the proven exposure was only three of 15 years. As Amaca and CSR had equal culpability, CSR was liable for half of that three-fifteenths contribution, namely 10 per cent of Amaca's $270,000 settlement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Contribution in Dust Diseases Proceedings / Questions Remitted by the Court of Appeal; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Verdict for the cross-claimant; judgment for Amaca against CSR in the sum of $27,000 plus agreed interest, with costs payable by CSR.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma' 'partnership Dissolution Deed' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 S 5(1)']
['dust Diseases' 'partnership' 'tort' 'contribution' 'statutory Jurisdiction'] ['asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma' 'partnership Dissolution Deed' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 S 5(1)']

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 in Dust Diseases Proceedings / Questions Remitted by the Court of Appeal; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Amaca could seek contribution from CSR under the Partnership Act 1892.' 'Whether the Dust Diseases Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a claim based on the Partnership Act 1892 or equitable contribution.' 'Whether the Deed of Dissolution of Partnership released CSR from liability for future contribution claims by Amaca.' 'Whether CSR was liable to contribute under s 5(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946.' "What proportion of Amaca's settlement payment should be borne by CSR having regard to exposure to partnership asbestos product."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed of Dissolution released the partners from liability and terminated any rights and obligations under the Partnership Deed, including future claims under the Partnership Act 1892. The Tribunal expressed the view that it did not have equitable jurisdiction. CSR would have been liable to the plaintiff as a tortfeasor because exposure to partnership K-Lite asbestos between April 1967 and 1970 materially contributed to the plaintiff's mesothelioma, but the proven exposure was only three of 15 years. As Amaca and CSR had equal culpability, CSR was liable for half of that three-fifteenths contribution, namely 10 per cent of Amaca's $270,000 settlement.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the cross-claimant; judgment for Amaca against CSR in the sum of $27,000 plus agreed interest, with costs payable by CSR.

Orders

  • ['CSR is liable to pay 10 per cent of the $270,000 paid by Amaca to Pacific Power and Delta Electricity.' 'Verdict for the cross-claimant and judgment in the sum of $27,000.' 'CSR should pay interest as agreed.' 'The cross-defendant will pay the costs of the proceedings which resulted in the decision of 8 August...