Comcare v Amaca Pty Limited [2009] NSWDDT 17

Comcare v Amaca Pty Limited [2009] NSWDDT 17

Applying the Peto formula to the exposures found, Amaca's causal contribution was 728,271 and Comcare's was 1,166,400, approximately 38.4 per cent and 61.6 per cent respectively. Neither party led evidence or submissions on culpability, and they were treated as equally culpable. Amaca's 38.4 per cent share of the agreed net damages of $2,889,600 was $1,109,606.40, but Amaca had already paid $1,354,240, so Comcare was not entitled to further contribution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Contribution Claim in Mesothelioma Asbestos Exposure Proceedings Under S5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 / Judgment After Hearing of Cross Claims
Outcome
Judgment for Amaca; Comcare not entitled to further contribution.
Legal Topics
['mesothelioma' 'asbestos Exposure' 'peto Formula' 'apportionment' 'causal Contribution' 'culpability']
['tort Law' 'dust Diseases' 'contribution Between Tortfeasors'] ['mesothelioma' 'asbestos Exposure' 'peto Formula' 'apportionment' 'causal Contribution' 'culpability']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contribution Claim in Mesothelioma Asbestos Exposure Proceedings Under S5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 / Judgment After Hearing of Cross Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What causal contribution should be attributed to Amaca and Comcare for Mr Butler's mesothelioma." 'How the Peto formula should be applied to the found asbestos exposures.' 'Whether Comcare was entitled to further contribution from Amaca under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Peto formula to the exposures found, Amaca's causal contribution was 728,271 and Comcare's was 1,166,400, approximately 38.4 per cent and 61.6 per cent respectively. Neither party led evidence or submissions on culpability, and they were treated as equally culpable. Amaca's 38.4 per cent share of the agreed net damages of $2,889,600 was $1,109,606.40, but Amaca had already paid $1,354,240, so Comcare was not entitled to further contribution.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Amaca; Comcare not entitled to further contribution.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for Amaca.' 'Comcare to pay the costs of Amaca.' 'Liberty to apply in relation to errors of calculation and/or special costs orders.']