Lavis v Amaca Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDDT 6

Lavis v Amaca Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDDT 6

The plaintiff, having contracted mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos in the course of employment, is entitled to damages, including loss of superannuation entitlements, as such loss is a pecuniary loss directly attributable to the defendant’s tort. This follows the majority approach in Amaca Pty Ltd v Latz...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Leonard Raymond Lavis; Defendant: Amaca Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Claim / Assessment of Damages After Liability Established
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for $488,011.04; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; earlier stay on judgment sum lifted.
Legal Topics
Mesothelioma, Damages Assessment, Superannuation Loss, Gratuitous Care, Loss of Life Expectancy
Tort Law Personal Injury Dust Diseases Mesothelioma Damages Assessment Superannuation Loss Gratuitous Care Loss of Life Expectancy

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Raymond Lavis

Plaintiff

Amaca Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Claim / Assessment of Damages After Liability Established

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for loss of superannuation entitlements as a result of contracting mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure
  2. 2 Assessment of appropriate quantum for general damages, loss of expectation of life, gratuitous care, and superannuation loss

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, having contracted mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos in the course of employment, is entitled to damages, including loss of superannuation entitlements, as such loss is a pecuniary loss directly attributable to the defendant’s tort. This follows the majority approach in Amaca Pty Ltd v Latz [2017] SASCFC 145 and High Court authority in Fitch v Hyde‑Cates, with a distinction from age pension claims, and is not plainly inconsistent with binding High Court authority. Quantum for damages is assessed according to periods and levels of care required, deductions for maintenance, and deductions for reversionary pension in accordance with Latz.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for $488,011.04; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; earlier stay on judgment sum lifted.

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $488,011.04
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis