(re Monteath) Eraring Energy v Babcock International Limited & Ors [2010] NSWDDT 18

(re Monteath) Eraring Energy v Babcock International Limited & Ors [2010] NSWDDT 18

Amaca was bound, at least on an interim basis, by the Contributions Assessor's determination of four per cent and by the settlement figure of $475,000 for the purposes of settlement and payment of the plaintiff's damages. A defendant or cross-defendant cannot avoid the binding effect of the contributions assessment by disputing the amount of the plaintiff's settlement; its remedy is in any subsequent dispute between defendants as to apportionment. The Tribunal therefore could order Amaca to pay four per cent of $475,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Cross Claims Concerning a Contributions Assessment / Application by the Cross Claimant for an Order That the Fourth Cross Defendant Pay Its Assessed Percentage of the Plaintiff's Settlement
Outcome
Application granted; order made against Amaca.
Legal Topics
['contributions Assessment' 'cross Claims' "settlement of Plaintiff's Claim" 'binding Effect of Contributions Determination' 'single Claims Manager']
['dust Diseases' 'civil Procedure' 'contribution and Apportionment'] ['contributions Assessment' 'cross Claims' "settlement of Plaintiff's Claim" 'binding Effect of Contributions Determination' 'single Claims Manager']

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

Dust Diseases Cross Claims Concerning a Contributions Assessment / Application by the Cross Claimant for an Order That the Fourth Cross Defendant Pay Its Assessed Percentage of the Plaintiff's Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal may order a cross-defendant that accepted the Contributions Assessor's percentage but disputed the settlement quantum to pay that percentage of the plaintiff's settlement." "Whether a contributions assessment is binding for the purposes of settlement and payment of the plaintiff's damages where not all defendants or cross-defendants were parties to the settlement." 'Whether the role or authority of the Single Claims Manager affected the binding effect of the settlement for contribution purposes.']

Ratio Decidendi

Amaca was bound, at least on an interim basis, by the Contributions Assessor's determination of four per cent and by the settlement figure of $475,000 for the purposes of settlement and payment of the plaintiff's damages. A defendant or cross-defendant cannot avoid the binding effect of the contributions assessment by disputing the amount of the plaintiff's settlement; its remedy is in any subsequent dispute between defendants as to apportionment. The Tribunal therefore could order Amaca to pay four per cent of $475,000.

Court Disposition

Application granted; order made against Amaca.

Orders

  • ['Amaca Pty Limited is required to pay four per cent of $475,000.' 'Order made in accordance with the form of order handed to the Tribunal.']