(Re: Gynes) Eraring Energy v SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWDDT 23

(Re: Gynes) Eraring Energy v SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWDDT 23

Liability was apportioned 75% to SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd and 25% to Eraring Energy as it was established that the first cross defendant had actual knowledge as early as 1931 of the dangers of asbestos and was in a superior position to warn and implement a safe system of work, whereas Eraring Energy’s (Elcom’s) knowledge was imputed only and actual knowledge was only acquired in 1970 after material exposure of the plaintiff had ended; therefore, SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd should bear the greater share of responsibility for the plaintiff’s injury.

Parties
Cross Claimant: Eraring Energy; 1st Cross Defendant: SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd; 2nd Cross Defendant: Wallaby Grip Limited; 3rd Cross Defendant: Amaca Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Contribution Proceedings (cross Claim) / Judgment on Apportionment of Liability and Quantum Following Default Judgment
Outcome
SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd ordered to pay contribution; apportionment of liability and quantification of amounts ordered, with interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Concurrent Tortfeasors, Apportionment of Liability, Asbestos Related Disease, Default Judgment, Contribution Between Tortfeasors
Torts Occupational Health and Safety Civil Procedure Negligence Concurrent Tortfeasors Apportionment of Liability Asbestos Related Disease Default Judgment +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eraring Energy

Cross Claimant

SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd

1st Cross Defendant

Wallaby Grip Limited

2nd Cross Defendant

Amaca Pty Limited

3rd Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contribution Proceedings (cross Claim) / Judgment on Apportionment of Liability and Quantum Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd is liable to contribute towards Eraring Energy's payment to the plaintiff under s 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946
  2. 2 What is the just and equitable apportionment of liability between Eraring Energy and SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd for the plaintiff's injury
  3. 3 Whether SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangers of asbestos at the relevant times

Ratio Decidendi

Liability was apportioned 75% to SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd and 25% to Eraring Energy as it was established that the first cross defendant had actual knowledge as early as 1931 of the dangers of asbestos and was in a superior position to warn and implement a safe system of work, whereas Eraring Energy’s (Elcom’s) knowledge was imputed only and actual knowledge was only acquired in 1970 after material exposure of the plaintiff had ended; therefore, SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd should bear the greater share of responsibility for the plaintiff’s injury.

Court Disposition

SC Cheadle Hulme Ltd ordered to pay contribution; apportionment of liability and quantification of amounts ordered, with interest and costs.

Orders

  • S.C Cheadle Hulme Limited is to pay Eraring Energy $23,437.50
  • S.C Cheadle Hulme Limited is to pay Eraring Energy's costs together with interest in the sum of $5,079.84