(Re Lorizio) A B & P Constructions Pty Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) [2006] NSWDDT 19

(Re Lorizio) A B & P Constructions Pty Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) [2006] NSWDDT 19

Amaca Pty Ltd did not sufficiently discharge its duty to warn users about the true risks of inhaling asbestos dust in its cement products, given its knowledge of those risks and the inadequacy and blandness of the warnings provided. Therefore, Amaca would, if sued, have been liable for the same damage and must contribute half the settlement paid by the employer to the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for cross-claimant against cross-defendant for contribution.
Legal Topics
['contribution and Indemnity' 'duty to Warn' 'breach of Duty' 'causation in Asbestos Claims']
['tort Law' 'product Liability' 'employment Law'] ['contribution and Indemnity' 'duty to Warn' 'breach of Duty' 'causation in Asbestos Claims']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did Amaca Pty Ltd discharge its duty to warn of dangers associated with its asbestos products?' 'Would Amaca have been liable to the plaintiff for the same damage as the employer?' 'What apportionment is just and equitable between employer and supplier?']

Ratio Decidendi

Amaca Pty Ltd did not sufficiently discharge its duty to warn users about the true risks of inhaling asbestos dust in its cement products, given its knowledge of those risks and the inadequacy and blandness of the warnings provided. Therefore, Amaca would, if sued, have been liable for the same damage and must contribute half the settlement paid by the employer to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for cross-claimant against cross-defendant for contribution.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for cross-claimant against cross-defendant for $500,000.' 'Cross-defendant to pay interest at 9% per annum from 6 April 2005.' "Cross-defendant to pay cross-claimant's costs." 'Liberty to apply in relation to costs.']