(Re: Dankworth) Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee v Patrick Operations Pty Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 33

(Re: Dankworth) Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee v Patrick Operations Pty Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 33

Mr Dankworth's circumstances were sufficiently close to those of Mr Gibson to require the same apportionment: Patrick Operations Pty Ltd should bear 75 per cent of the plaintiff's judgment and SIFC 25 per cent. Patricks' direct day-to-day control and employer duty made its responsibility greater than SIFC's overarching statutory role. The cross-claimant obtained a result better than its offer of compromise, justifying indemnity costs from 11 February 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim Between Defendants for Contribution or Indemnity Pursuant to the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 S 5 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment entered for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Exposure' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'apportionment of Liability' "employer's Duty to Provide a Safe System of Work" 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise']
['dust Diseases' 'torts' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['asbestos Exposure' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'apportionment of Liability' "employer's Duty to Provide a Safe System of Work" 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise']

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

Cross Claim Between Defendants for Contribution or Indemnity Pursuant to the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 S 5 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Patrick Operations Pty Ltd and the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee should bear the plaintiff's judgment in the same 75 per cent and 25 per cent proportions applied in Gibson." "Whether the facts of Mr Dankworth's asbestos exposure warranted departure from the apportionment approach taken in Gibson." 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered because the cross-claimant bettered an offer of compromise.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Dankworth's circumstances were sufficiently close to those of Mr Gibson to require the same apportionment: Patrick Operations Pty Ltd should bear 75 per cent of the plaintiff's judgment and SIFC 25 per cent. Patricks' direct day-to-day control and employer duty made its responsibility greater than SIFC's overarching statutory role. The cross-claimant obtained a result better than its offer of compromise, justifying indemnity costs from 11 February 2005.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $150,000 plus costs.' "The burden of the plaintiff's judgment is to be borne three-quarters by Patrick Operations Pty Ltd and one-quarter by the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee." 'Costs payable by the cross-defendant are...