(Re: Macri) ACN 000 343 019 Pty Limited v Cigna Insurance Asia Pacific Limited and Anor [2005] NSWDDT 62

(Re: Macri) ACN 000 343 019 Pty Limited v Cigna Insurance Asia Pacific Limited and Anor [2005] NSWDDT 62

The offer and acceptance between Amaca and Fire Control were expressed as a 50% contribution to Fire Control's liability to the plaintiff and did not state or imply that Fire Control's separate rights against other concurrent tortfeasors were extinguished. Because Fire Control alleged separate supply of asbestos products by Amaca and Bradford, and the settlement left the other 50% of liability unresolved, Fire Control had not obtained full satisfaction of all contribution rights. The summary dismissal or stay application therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim in Dust Diseases Tribunal Asbestos Proceedings; Application for Summary Dismissal or Alternatively Stay / Fifth Cross Defendant's Motion After Settlement of the Plaintiff's Claim and Settlement of the Cross Claim Against Amaca
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'stay of Proceedings' 'concurrent Tortfeasors' 'contribution and Indemnity' 'settlement and Full Satisfaction' 'double Satisfaction' 'provisional Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'torts' 'dust Diseases/asbestos Litigation' 'contribution Among Tortfeasors'] ['summary Dismissal' 'stay of Proceedings' 'concurrent Tortfeasors' 'contribution and Indemnity' 'settlement and Full Satisfaction' 'double Satisfaction' 'provisional Damages']

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 in Dust Diseases Tribunal Asbestos Proceedings; Application for Summary Dismissal or Alternatively Stay / Fifth Cross Defendant's Motion After Settlement of the Plaintiff's Claim and Settlement of the Cross Claim Against Amaca

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the cross claimant obtained full satisfaction of its entitlement to proceed against other concurrent tortfeasors by accepting Amaca's offer to contribute 50% of any damages and costs payable to the plaintiff." "Whether the settlement with Amaca extinguished Fire Control's separate rights against Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Limited." 'Whether allowing the cross-claim against Bradford Insulation Industries Pty Limited to proceed would be unconscionable because it might indirectly affect Amaca, CSR or both.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offer and acceptance between Amaca and Fire Control were expressed as a 50% contribution to Fire Control's liability to the plaintiff and did not state or imply that Fire Control's separate rights against other concurrent tortfeasors were extinguished. Because Fire Control alleged separate supply of asbestos products by Amaca and Bradford, and the settlement left the other 50% of liability unresolved, Fire Control had not obtained full satisfaction of all contribution rights. The summary dismissal or stay application therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs."]