Amaca Pty Limited v The University of Sydney; (Re: John William Starr); The University of Sydney v Amaca Pty Limited; (Re: John William Starr) [2020] NSWDDT 1
Amaca Pty Limited is more blameworthy, having greater actual knowledge of the dangers of asbestos and as sole product supplier post-1977; 60% of responsibility is apportioned to Amaca and 40% to The University of Sydney, reflecting the relative causal potency and blameworthiness of each.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 February 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Cross Claims for Contribution Between Tortfeasors / Post Settlement Apportionment Hearing
- Outcome
- Liability for damages and costs apportioned: Amaca Pty Limited (60%), The University of Sydney (40%)
- Legal Topics
- ['apportionment Liability' 'causation' 'blameworthiness']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Cross Claims for Contribution Between Tortfeasors / Post Settlement Apportionment Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['How should damages and costs paid to Mr Starr be apportioned between Amaca Pty Limited and The University of Sydney?' 'What are the relative causal potency and blameworthiness of each defendant?']
Ratio Decidendi
Amaca Pty Limited is more blameworthy, having greater actual knowledge of the dangers of asbestos and as sole product supplier post-1977; 60% of responsibility is apportioned to Amaca and 40% to The University of Sydney, reflecting the relative causal potency and blameworthiness of each.
Court Disposition
Liability for damages and costs apportioned: Amaca Pty Limited (60%), The University of Sydney (40%)
Orders
- ['Amaca Pty Limited to pay 60% of damages and costs paid to the plaintiff.' 'The University of Sydney to pay 40% of damages and costs paid to the plaintiff.' 'Question of costs of the cross-claims reserved for further determination.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment