(Re Cheong) SRA v Amaca Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDDT 24

(Re Cheong) SRA v Amaca Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDDT 24

The Tribunal held that Amaca and Bradford should contribute because State Rail had paid damages for Mr Davey's asbestosis, the evidence established bystander exposure to asbestos dust in railway workplaces, and the supply records showed Amaca was a major supplier of relevant asbestos insulation products from 1950 until 1964 and remained involved through the partnership arrangements until 1970, while Bradford was the exclusive supplier of relevant products for periods between 1964 and 1970. Having regard to relative blameworthiness, causal potency, knowledge of asbestos risks, other asbestos products and suppliers, the diminishing number of steam locomotives, and State Rail's continuing...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Contribution Between Tortfeasors in Asbestos/dust Disease Proceedings / Judgment on the Balance of the Cross Claim After Partial Settlement
Outcome
Cross-claim allowed in part; Amaca Pty Ltd ordered to contribute $50,000 and Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd ordered to contribute $10,000, with interest and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['asbestosis' 'asbestos Exposure in Railway Employment' 'supply of Asbestos Products' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 S 5']
['dust Diseases' 'torts' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'negligence'] ['asbestosis' 'asbestos Exposure in Railway Employment' 'supply of Asbestos Products' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 S 5']

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 Between Tortfeasors in Asbestos/dust Disease Proceedings / Judgment on the Balance of the Cross Claim After Partial Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Amaca Pty Ltd and Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd were liable to contribute to the State Rail Authority in respect of damages paid to Raymond John Davey for asbestosis.' "What contribution was just and equitable having regard to each party's responsibility for the damage." 'Whether the evidence established that Mr Davey was exposed to asbestos products supplied by Amaca Pty Ltd and Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that Amaca and Bradford should contribute because State Rail had paid damages for Mr Davey's asbestosis, the evidence established bystander exposure to asbestos dust in railway workplaces, and the supply records showed Amaca was a major supplier of relevant asbestos insulation products from 1950 until 1964 and remained involved through the partnership arrangements until 1970, while Bradford was the exclusive supplier of relevant products for periods between 1964 and 1970. Having regard to relative blameworthiness, causal potency, knowledge of asbestos risks, other asbestos products and suppliers, the diminishing number of steam locomotives, and State Rail's continuing...

Court Disposition

Cross-claim allowed in part; Amaca Pty Ltd ordered to contribute $50,000 and Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd ordered to contribute $10,000, with interest and costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd to file and serve cross-claims against such parties as may be advised on or before 31 October 2006.' "Order Amaca Pty Ltd to pay to State Rail Authority by way of contribution to the plaintiff's damages the sum of $50,000." "Order Bradford Insulation Industries...