Amaca Pty Limited v Seltsam Pty Limited (Re: Donkin) [2018] NSWDDT 1

Amaca Pty Limited v Seltsam Pty Limited (Re: Donkin) [2018] NSWDDT 1

The exposure of Mr Donkin to asbestos cement products was substantially more to Wunderlich flat sheets prior to 1973, equally apportioned between both companies from 1973 to 1977, and exclusively to James Hardie from 1977 onwards; therefore, an apportionment of 50% to Amaca and 50% to Seltsam was found to be just and equitable under s 5(1)(c) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Contribution / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant for $185,000; costs order in favour of cross-claimant; leave to seek a different costs order granted.
Legal Topics
['contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'liability for Dust Diseases' 'apportionment of Damages' 'joint Tortfeasors']
['torts' 'dust Diseases'] ['contribution Between Tortfeasors' 'liability for Dust Diseases' 'apportionment of Damages' 'joint Tortfeasors']

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 for Contribution / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the late Mr Donkin was exposed to Wunderlich asbestos cement products as well as James Hardie products' 'Appropriate apportionment of responsibility for damages between Amaca and Seltsam under s 5(1)(c) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946']

Ratio Decidendi

The exposure of Mr Donkin to asbestos cement products was substantially more to Wunderlich flat sheets prior to 1973, equally apportioned between both companies from 1973 to 1977, and exclusively to James Hardie from 1977 onwards; therefore, an apportionment of 50% to Amaca and 50% to Seltsam was found to be just and equitable under s 5(1)(c) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant for $185,000; costs order in favour of cross-claimant; leave to seek a different costs order granted.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant for $185,000' 'Order that such judgment take effect on the date on which the cross-claimant made payment to the plaintiff in satisfaction of the Consent Judgment entered on 21 July 2016' "Order the cross-defendant to pay the cross-claimant's costs" 'Grant...