(re Floro) Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited v Amaca Pty Limited [2007] NSWDDT 27

(re Floro) Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited v Amaca Pty Limited [2007] NSWDDT 27

Both Bluescope and Amaca had actual knowledge of the risks associated with asbestos. Bluescope, as employer, had day-to-day control over the plaintiff's working conditions and a higher duty of care. Amaca, as supplier, had indirect control via warnings but Bluescope's actual knowledge lessened the effect of warnings. Apportionment based on these findings returns 40% liability to Amaca and 60% to Bluescope for remaining damages.

Parties
Main Cross Claimant: Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited; Cross Defendant: Amaca Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Cross Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Verdict for Bluescope on the cross claim for 40% of $318,750 and 40% of appropriate interest.
Legal Topics
Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Apportionment of Liability, Asbestos Related Disease, Causal Potency, Relative Blameworthiness
Tort Law Contribution Between Tortfeasors Apportionment of Liability Asbestos Related Disease Causal Potency Relative Blameworthiness

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited

Main Cross Claimant

Amaca Pty Limited

Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Dust Diseases Cross Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Amaca Pty Limited should contribute to Bluescope's liability to the plaintiff for mesothelioma.
  2. 2 Just and equitable apportionment of liability between Bluescope and Amaca.
  3. 3 Whether Bluescope had actual knowledge of the health risks associated with asbestos.

Ratio Decidendi

Both Bluescope and Amaca had actual knowledge of the risks associated with asbestos. Bluescope, as employer, had day-to-day control over the plaintiff's working conditions and a higher duty of care. Amaca, as supplier, had indirect control via warnings but Bluescope's actual knowledge lessened the effect of warnings. Apportionment based on these findings returns 40% liability to Amaca and 60% to Bluescope for remaining damages.

Court Disposition

Verdict for Bluescope on the cross claim for 40% of $318,750 and 40% of appropriate interest.

Orders

  • Parties to provide short minutes of order reflecting reasons.
  • Liberty to apply as to costs.