(Re Limpus) Seltsam Pty Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDDT 5
The cross claimant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff had been exposed to Hardies product. Accordingly the Tribunal was not satisfied that the cross defendant was a tortfeasor who, if sued, would have been liable in respect of the same damage, and judgment was entered for the cross defendant.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Cross Claim for Contribution or Indemnity in Dust Diseases Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Verdict for the cross defendant.
- Legal Topics
- ['asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'product Identification' 'causation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Contribution or Indemnity in Dust Diseases Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the evidence permitted the conclusion that the plaintiff was exposed to the cross defendant's products." 'Whether the cross defendant was a tortfeasor who, if sued, would have been liable in respect of the same damage.' 'Depending on proof of exposure, whether causation was in issue.']
Ratio Decidendi
The cross claimant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff had been exposed to Hardies product. Accordingly the Tribunal was not satisfied that the cross defendant was a tortfeasor who, if sued, would have been liable in respect of the same damage, and judgment was entered for the cross defendant.
Court Disposition
Verdict for the cross defendant.
Orders
- ["The cross claimant is to pay the cross defendant's costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment