Micallef v The Myer Emporium Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 13

Micallef v The Myer Emporium Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 13

Both defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and breached it; first defendant constructively knew the dangers of asbestos and failed its obligation as employer; second defendant, in the business of asbestos spraying, had actual knowledge and higher culpability; damages apportioned 10% to first defendant, 90% to second defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff jointly and severally against both defendants.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Injury' "employer's Duty of Care" 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Liability' 'cross Claims Between Defendants']
['tort Law' 'occupational Health and Safety'] ['asbestos Injury' "employer's Duty of Care" 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Liability' 'cross Claims Between Defendants']

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

Claim for Damages / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff resulting in injury' 'The appropriate apportionment of liability between defendants for damages caused by asbestos exposure']

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and breached it; first defendant constructively knew the dangers of asbestos and failed its obligation as employer; second defendant, in the business of asbestos spraying, had actual knowledge and higher culpability; damages apportioned 10% to first defendant, 90% to second defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff jointly and severally against both defendants.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff awarded $440,000 in damages jointly and severally against both defendants.' 'First defendant to pay 10% and second defendant to pay 90% of the judgment sum.' "Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs in the same proportions as damages; second defendant to pay the first defendant's costs from 7 March 2005."...