Di Giuglio v Shell Refining (Australia) Pty Limited & Ors (No. 2) [2004] NSWDDT 37

Di Giuglio v Shell Refining (Australia) Pty Limited & Ors (No. 2) [2004] NSWDDT 37

The first defendant owed a duty to ensure reasonable care was taken for workers at its refinery and no care was taken to protect the deceased from asbestos exposure; that exposure was sufficient to cause his mesothelioma. On the balance of probabilities, having regard to the deceased's affidavit, the proximity of Hardies' premises, and the Hardies brochure showing extensive use of its products at the Shell refinery, the asbestos material used in 1962 was Hardies material supplied by the second defendant. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to succeed against both defendants, with damages assessed for the deceased's marked suffering, loss of expectation of life, past care and interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Personal Injury Proceedings Concerning Mesothelioma From Asbestos Exposure / Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Damages
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff against each defendant for $254,740 plus costs.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'duty of Care of Occupier or Premises Operator' 'causation' 'product Identification' 'assessment of Damages' 'gratuitous Care']
['torts' 'negligence' 'dust Diseases' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'duty of Care of Occupier or Premises Operator' 'causation' 'product Identification' 'assessment of Damages' 'gratuitous Care']

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

Dust Diseases Personal Injury Proceedings Concerning Mesothelioma From Asbestos Exposure / Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the deceased while he worked at its refinery premises.' "Whether exposure at the first defendant's premises was sufficient to cause the deceased's mesothelioma." 'Whether the asbestos products used at the Shell refinery in 1962 were products of the second defendant.' 'What damages should be awarded for general damages, loss of expectation of life, past care and interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant owed a duty to ensure reasonable care was taken for workers at its refinery and no care was taken to protect the deceased from asbestos exposure; that exposure was sufficient to cause his mesothelioma. On the balance of probabilities, having regard to the deceased's affidavit, the proximity of Hardies' premises, and the Hardies brochure showing extensive use of its products at the Shell refinery, the asbestos material used in 1962 was Hardies material supplied by the second defendant. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to succeed against both defendants, with damages assessed for the deceased's marked suffering, loss of expectation of life, past care and interest.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff against each defendant for $254,740 plus costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff against each defendant for $254,740 plus costs.' "Defendants are to pay plaintiff's costs."]