State of New South Wales v Amaca Pty Limited; Amaca Pty Limited v CSR Limited [2016] NSWDDT 2

State of New South Wales v Amaca Pty Limited; Amaca Pty Limited v CSR Limited [2016] NSWDDT 2

The underlying plaintiffs were exposed to James Hardie or Hardie-B.I. asbestos products to varying degrees at the Newcastle Dockyard. James Hardie owed them a duty as manufacturer and supplier to take reasonable care to avoid physical injury. It breached that duty by failing to give adequate warnings to end users about known asbestos health risks, and adequate warnings would probably have led the plaintiffs to take protective steps or seek other employment. The evidence was sufficient to assess relative causal potency and moral culpability, so Amaca was liable to contribute to the State in specified percentages. CSR was liable to contribute to Amaca only in respect of Hardie-B.I....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Claims for Contribution in Respect of Settled Asbestos Related Disease Claims by Dockyard Employees, and Cross Claims for Contribution Between Amaca Pty Limited and CSR Limited / Principal Judgment; Rulings and Directions
Outcome
The Tribunal ruled the percentage apportionment of liability between the State and Amaca for each underlying plaintiff and ruled the amounts Amaca was entitled to recover from CSR; parties were directed to bring in short minutes of order.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Exposure at Workplace' "manufacturer's Duty of Care to End Users" 'failure to Warn' 'causation' 'just and Equitable Apportionment' 'partnership Contribution Liability']
['tort Law' 'negligence' 'dust Diseases' 'products Liability' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors'] ['asbestos Exposure at Workplace' "manufacturer's Duty of Care to End Users" 'failure to Warn' 'causation' 'just and Equitable Apportionment' 'partnership Contribution Liability']

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

Claims for Contribution in Respect of Settled Asbestos Related Disease Claims by Dockyard Employees, and Cross Claims for Contribution Between Amaca Pty Limited and CSR Limited / Principal Judgment; Rulings and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each underlying plaintiff was exposed to James Hardie product.' 'Whether James Hardie owed each underlying plaintiff a duty of care.' 'Whether James Hardie breached that duty by failing to warn of asbestos risks.' 'Whether the breach caused injury to each underlying plaintiff.' 'What was a just and equitable apportionment of liability between the State and Amaca.' 'Whether the evidence permitted assessment of relative causal potency and culpability between the Newcastle Dockyard and James Hardie.' 'What contribution, if any, CSR should make to Amaca for partnership product.']

Ratio Decidendi

The underlying plaintiffs were exposed to James Hardie or Hardie-B.I. asbestos products to varying degrees at the Newcastle Dockyard. James Hardie owed them a duty as manufacturer and supplier to take reasonable care to avoid physical injury. It breached that duty by failing to give adequate warnings to end users about known asbestos health risks, and adequate warnings would probably have led the plaintiffs to take protective steps or seek other employment. The evidence was sufficient to assess relative causal potency and moral culpability, so Amaca was liable to contribute to the State in specified percentages. CSR was liable to contribute to Amaca only in respect of Hardie-B.I....

Court Disposition

The Tribunal ruled the percentage apportionment of liability between the State and Amaca for each underlying plaintiff and ruled the amounts Amaca was entitled to recover from CSR; parties were directed to bring in short minutes of order.

Orders

  • ["In the State's claims against Amaca, liability is to be borne as follows: Mr Derepas, State 75%, Amaca 25%; Mr Lewis, State 60%, Amaca 40%; Mr Pajkovic, State 65%, Amaca 35%; Mr Daly, State 70%, Amaca 30%; Mr Allars, State 65%, Amaca 35%; Mr Bennett, State 70%, Amaca 30%; Mr Smith, State 90%, Amaca 10%; Mr Payne,...