Eraring Energy v Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 26

Eraring Energy v Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 26

Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd supplied asbestos products only for Munmorah, and Mr Bower's relevant exposure there was a very small part of his total weighted exposure. After allowing for other products used at Munmorah, BI products accounted for about one per cent, and probably less, of his cumulative asbestos burden. That causal contribution was de minimis, so Eraring Energy's cross claim for contribution failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Contribution / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the cross defendant.
Legal Topics
['mesothelioma' 'asbestos Exposure' 'duty to Warn' 'causation' 'de Minimis Causal Contribution']
['tort Law' 'dust Diseases' 'asbestos Litigation' 'contribution'] ['mesothelioma' 'asbestos Exposure' 'duty to Warn' 'causation' 'de Minimis Causal Contribution']

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 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd should contribute to Eraring Energy's net liability to George Bower." "Whether asbestos fibres from products supplied by Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd made more than a de minimis causal contribution to George Bower's cumulative asbestos burden."]

Ratio Decidendi

Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Ltd supplied asbestos products only for Munmorah, and Mr Bower's relevant exposure there was a very small part of his total weighted exposure. After allowing for other products used at Munmorah, BI products accounted for about one per cent, and probably less, of his cumulative asbestos burden. That causal contribution was de minimis, so Eraring Energy's cross claim for contribution failed.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the cross defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the cross defendant.']