Babcock Australia Ltd v Eraring Energy and Babcock International LtdEraring Energy v Babcock Australia Ltd and Babcock International Ltd [2001] NSWDDT 5

Babcock Australia Ltd v Eraring Energy and Babcock International LtdEraring Energy v Babcock Australia Ltd and Babcock International Ltd [2001] NSWDDT 5

BIL owed a duty of care both as designer and supplier of asbestos-containing materials to the plaintiff (Mr Royal) and to BAL. BIL’s actual knowledge of the dangers, failure to warn, and failure to institute safe work systems rendered it liable for injuries suffered by the plaintiff and consequential loss to BAL. Apportionment of liability was based on culpability and causal contribution: 75% to BIL, 15% to BAL, 10% to Eraring Energy. Payments by James Hardie partly satisfied the liabilities of BAL and Eraring Energy, reducing their claims for contribution accordingly.

Parties
First Cross Claimant and First Cross Defendant to the Second Cross Claim: Babcock Australia Ltd; Second Cross Claimant and First Cross Defendant to the First Cross Claim: Eraring Energy; Second Cross Defendant to the First and Second Cross Claims: Babcock International Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Cross Claims Following Common Law Damages Judgment for Asbestos Related Illness / Judgment After Trial on Issues of Liability, Apportionment, and Contribution
Outcome
BIL liable in negligence to BAL and Eraring Energy for contribution; apportionment of liability and accounting for partial satisfaction by third-party payments ordered; calculation of final sums stood over for further hearing.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care by Supplier and Designer, Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Contributory Negligence, Liability for Industrial Disease, Foreseeability and Knowledge, Agency of State Corporations
Torts Negligence Workers’ Compensation Apportionment of Liability Duty of Care by Supplier and Designer Contribution Between Tortfeasors Contributory Negligence Liability for Industrial Disease +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babcock Australia Ltd

First Cross Claimant and First Cross Defendant to the Second Cross Claim

Eraring Energy

Second Cross Claimant and First Cross Defendant to the First Cross Claim

Babcock International Ltd

Second Cross Defendant to the First and Second Cross Claims

Procedural Posture

Cross Claims Following Common Law Damages Judgment for Asbestos Related Illness / Judgment After Trial on Issues of Liability, Apportionment, and Contribution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Babcock International Ltd liable in negligence to the worker and to BAL as a supplier and designer?
  2. 2 What was the scope of any duty of care owed by BIL to Mr Royal and BAL?
  3. 3 What was the legal effect of payments by James Hardie to BAL and Eraring Energy on cross-claims between other parties?

Ratio Decidendi

BIL owed a duty of care both as designer and supplier of asbestos-containing materials to the plaintiff (Mr Royal) and to BAL. BIL’s actual knowledge of the dangers, failure to warn, and failure to institute safe work systems rendered it liable for injuries suffered by the plaintiff and consequential loss to BAL. Apportionment of liability was based on culpability and causal contribution: 75% to BIL, 15% to BAL, 10% to Eraring Energy. Payments by James Hardie partly satisfied the liabilities of BAL and Eraring Energy, reducing their claims for contribution accordingly.

Court Disposition

BIL liable in negligence to BAL and Eraring Energy for contribution; apportionment of liability and accounting for partial satisfaction by third-party payments ordered; calculation of final sums stood over for further hearing.

Orders

  • BIL to pay Eraring Energy any sum by which Eraring Energy's payment towards the plaintiff's judgment and costs exceeds 10% of the total, less $21,500.
  • BIL to pay BAL the sum, if any, by which BAL's payment towards the plaintiff's judgment and costs exceeds 15% of the total, plus 83% of BAL's own costs incurred in the plaintiff's action, less $72,500.