CSR LTD v AMACA PTY LTD [2009] NSWCA 338

CSR LTD v AMACA PTY LTD [2009] NSWCA 338

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the appellants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; the evidence did not establish that, as at September 1965, the appellants (CSR and Midalco) should reasonably have foreseen risk of contracting mesothelioma from the kind of transitory or minimal asbestos exposure undergone by the plaintiff during home renovation. There was no evidential basis for ascribing such foresight to them and thus no duty of care arose in those circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Dust Diseases Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of the Dust Diseases Tribunal set aside. Cross-claim for contribution dismissed. Costs awarded to appellants. Monies paid by appellants to respondent to be repaid with interest.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'foreseeability' 'asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'procedural Fairness' 'scope of Duty' 'evidence on Foreseeability']
['torts' 'appeals' 'negligence'] ['duty of Care' 'foreseeability' 'asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'procedural Fairness' 'scope of Duty' 'evidence on Foreseeability']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Dust Diseases Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the knowledge of the appellants as to the risk posed by transitory or minimal exposure to crocidolite asbestos gave rise to a duty of care owed to the plaintiff.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred by relying upon a medical journal article not in evidence before the Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the appellants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; the evidence did not establish that, as at September 1965, the appellants (CSR and Midalco) should reasonably have foreseen risk of contracting mesothelioma from the kind of transitory or minimal asbestos exposure undergone by the plaintiff during home renovation. There was no evidential basis for ascribing such foresight to them and thus no duty of care arose in those circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the Dust Diseases Tribunal set aside. Cross-claim for contribution dismissed. Costs awarded to appellants. Monies paid by appellants to respondent to be repaid with interest.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Dust Diseases Tribunal of 25 June 2008 and the orders made on 8 July 2008.' "Dismiss the cross-claimant's claim for contribution against the cross-defendants." "Order cross-claimant to pay the cross-defendants' costs of the proceedings in the Dust Diseases...