ICI AUSTRALIA OPERATIONS PTY LTD v WALSH and ORS [1997] NSWCA 157

ICI AUSTRALIA OPERATIONS PTY LTD v WALSH and ORS [1997] NSWCA 157

The evidence did not support a finding, as a matter of probability, that the mesothelioma was caused by or materially contributed to by Mr Walsh's exposure to asbestos while employed by the appellant. The experts' views did not go beyond the possibility of such a link, and the probabilities weighed against liability for the later, relatively minimal exposures.

Parties
Appellant: ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Noeline Mary Walsh (executor for late John Michael Walsh); Second Respondent: Boral Ltd; Third Respondent: Coltec Services (partnership of six persons); Fourth Respondent: Ampol Refineries (Matraville) Ltd; Fifth Respondent: AC Hatrick Chemicals Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Negligence Appeal / Court of Appeal (post Trial Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed (Mason P and Handley JA; Meagher JA dissenting)
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Mesothelioma, Asbestos Exposure, Multiple Defendants, Expert Evidence
Torts Personal Injury Negligence Causation Mesothelioma Asbestos Exposure Multiple Defendants Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd

Appellant

Noeline Mary Walsh (executor for late John Michael Walsh)

First Respondent

Boral Ltd

Second Respondent

Coltec Services (partnership of six persons)

Third Respondent

Ampol Refineries (Matraville) Ltd

Fourth Respondent

AC Hatrick Chemicals Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Negligence Appeal / Court of Appeal (post Trial Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exposure to asbestos dust during employment with the appellant was causally relevant to Mr Walsh's mesothelioma as a matter of probability
  2. 2 Whether all exposures to asbestos are causative and materially contributed to the disease
  3. 3 The role and limits of expert evidence in linking particular exposures to the disease

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not support a finding, as a matter of probability, that the mesothelioma was caused by or materially contributed to by Mr Walsh's exposure to asbestos while employed by the appellant. The experts' views did not go beyond the possibility of such a link, and the probabilities weighed against liability for the later, relatively minimal exposures.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (Mason P and Handley JA; Meagher JA dissenting)

Orders

  • Appoint Noeline Mary Walsh as first respondent in place of the late John Michael Walsh.
  • Judgment against appellant set aside.