(re Brassil) Comcare v Amaca Pty Limited [2016] NSWDDT 1

(re Brassil) Comcare v Amaca Pty Limited [2016] NSWDDT 1

Applying the principle that particulars must be sufficient to guard the opposing party against surprise rather than disclose all evidence, most of Comcare's answers were adequate or the requests sought matters that were evidentiary rather than particulars. However, the answer to request 4.b. did not address the requested particulars of repair or maintenance works, and the answer to request 4.d. depended on that answer, so further answers were required for requests 4.b. and 4.d.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Claim for Indemnity or Contribution in Respect of Liability for Asbestos Related Mesothelioma / Procedural Ruling on Particulars
Outcome
Comcare directed to provide further answers to requests 4.b. and 4.d.; other challenged particulars were not ordered to be supplemented.
Legal Topics
['particulars' 'asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'indemnity or Contribution' 'manufacture and Supply of Asbestos Products']
['civil Procedure' 'dust Diseases' 'torts'] ['particulars' 'asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'indemnity or Contribution' 'manufacture and Supply of Asbestos Products']

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 Indemnity or Contribution in Respect of Liability for Asbestos Related Mesothelioma / Procedural Ruling on Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Comcare had provided adequate particulars in response to Amaca's requests concerning alleged asbestos products, manufacture, supply, installation, in situ exposure, repair, maintenance and removal works." 'Whether Comcare should be directed to provide further answers to requests 4.b. and 4.d. concerning repair or maintenance works and the nature and frequency of alleged exposure.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the principle that particulars must be sufficient to guard the opposing party against surprise rather than disclose all evidence, most of Comcare's answers were adequate or the requests sought matters that were evidentiary rather than particulars. However, the answer to request 4.b. did not address the requested particulars of repair or maintenance works, and the answer to request 4.d. depended on that answer, so further answers were required for requests 4.b. and 4.d.

Court Disposition

Comcare directed to provide further answers to requests 4.b. and 4.d.; other challenged particulars were not ordered to be supplemented.

Orders

  • ['Comcare is directed to provide further answers to requests 4.b. and 4.d. in the letter of 23 February 2016 from Mills Oakley Lawyers to Sparke Helmore Lawyers so numbered in the letter of 10 March 2016 from Sparke Helmore to Mills Oakley Lawyers being Annexure E to the affidavit of Nimisha Welgama affirmed on 22...