(Re Mowbray) Brambles Holdings Ltd v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd (No 6) [2006] NSWDDT 7

(Re Mowbray) Brambles Holdings Ltd v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd (No 6) [2006] NSWDDT 7

The only portion of the s25B Notice that constitutes a determination upon an issue of a general nature is the extract from Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes, as summarised in Eaton v Carrier Air Conditioning Proprietary Limited, which established that literature generally available in industrial health indicated foreseeable risk to persons servicing brake pads containing asbestos during the relevant period. BATAS is not granted leave to relitigate this determination as no new evidence was provided and prior proceedings were thorough.

Parties
Respondent to the Motion: Brambles Holdings Ltd; Applicant on the Motion: British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim (contribution And/or Compensation Following Settlement of Negligence Claim) / Interlocutory Motion Regarding Reliance on S25 B Notice
Outcome
Brambles may rely only on the determination from Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes as per s25B Notice regarding industry awareness of foreseeable risk of asbestos exposure; Brambles may not rely on other extracts; leave to reargue the Barnes determination is refused.
Legal Topics
Foreseeability, Employer's Duty of Care, Contribution, Breach of Duty, S25 B Notices, General Issues Determination
Tort Law Dust Diseases Procedural Law Foreseeability Employer's Duty of Care Contribution Breach of Duty S25 B Notices +1 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brambles Holdings Ltd

Respondent to the Motion

British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd

Applicant on the Motion

Procedural Posture

Cross Claim (contribution And/or Compensation Following Settlement of Negligence Claim) / Interlocutory Motion Regarding Reliance on S25 B Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Brambles may rely upon s25B Notice as determination of issues of a general nature under s25B Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether determinations in previous cases about industry knowledge of asbestos risks can be relied on to establish foreseeability in current proceedings
  3. 3 Whether BATAS may have leave to relitigate such determinations

Ratio Decidendi

The only portion of the s25B Notice that constitutes a determination upon an issue of a general nature is the extract from Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes, as summarised in Eaton v Carrier Air Conditioning Proprietary Limited, which established that literature generally available in industrial health indicated foreseeable risk to persons servicing brake pads containing asbestos during the relevant period. BATAS is not granted leave to relitigate this determination as no new evidence was provided and prior proceedings were thorough.

Court Disposition

Brambles may rely only on the determination from Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd v Barnes as per s25B Notice regarding industry awareness of foreseeable risk of asbestos exposure; Brambles may not rely on other extracts; leave to reargue the Barnes determination is refused.

Orders

  • Brambles may rely on determination from Barnes case regarding foreseeability under s25B.
  • Brambles may not rely on other extracts in its s25B Notice.