Roufas v Action Insulations Engineers and ors [2005] NSWDDT 29

Roufas v Action Insulations Engineers and ors [2005] NSWDDT 29

The plaintiff suffered significant asbestos-related respiratory disability, but retained capacity only for sedentary consulting, advisory and limited customer-relations work. Because the company's income was not produced wholly by the plaintiff's personal exertion, because employees and contractors also contributed, and because the company continued under the plaintiff's son, the appropriate measure of economic loss was not the whole company profit approach but the cost of a suitably qualified replacement, assessed at $95,000 per year, with future loss reduced by 20 per cent for vicissitudes. General damages, economic loss, care and associated expenses were then assessed, with provisional...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages for Asbestos Related Pleural Disease / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing; Liability Not Contested by Remaining Defendants and Damages Assessed
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants, with provisional judgments against the third, fourth and fifth defendants and leave to seek further damages if specified asbestos-related conditions develop.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'asbestos Related Pleural Disease' 'general Damages' 'economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'gratuitous Care' 'provisional Damages' 'mitigation of Loss']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'dust Diseases' 'asbestos Litigation' 'damages'] ['assessment of Damages' 'asbestos Related Pleural Disease' 'general Damages' 'economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'gratuitous Care' 'provisional Damages' 'mitigation of Loss']

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

Action for Damages for Asbestos Related Pleural Disease / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing; Liability Not Contested by Remaining Defendants and Damages Assessed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What amount should be awarded for general damages for the plaintiff's asbestos related pleural disease and associated risk of future malignancy." "How the plaintiff's past and future economic loss and loss of earning capacity should be assessed where his earning capacity had been exercised through a company he controlled." "Whether the plaintiff's economic loss should be assessed by reference to company profits or by reference to the cost of a replacement employee." 'What amounts should be allowed for Health Insurance Commission expenses, gratuitous care, maintenance, painting and future care.' 'Whether leave should be granted to claim further damages if specified asbestos-related conditions develop.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff suffered significant asbestos-related respiratory disability, but retained capacity only for sedentary consulting, advisory and limited customer-relations work. Because the company's income was not produced wholly by the plaintiff's personal exertion, because employees and contractors also contributed, and because the company continued under the plaintiff's son, the appropriate measure of economic loss was not the whole company profit approach but the cost of a suitably qualified replacement, assessed at $95,000 per year, with future loss reduced by 20 per cent for vicissitudes. General damages, economic loss, care and associated expenses were then assessed, with provisional...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants, with provisional judgments against the third, fourth and fifth defendants and leave to seek further damages if specified asbestos-related conditions develop.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the defendants to issue any cross-claims on or before 31 October 2005.' "By consent, ten per cent of the plaintiff's related and relevant exposure was in the employ of the second defendant." 'Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff as against the first defendant in the sum of $40,000 plus costs...