Latz v Hansen Family Investments (Ruling) [2005] NSWDDT 34

Latz v Hansen Family Investments (Ruling) [2005] NSWDDT 34

The adjournment was refused because the only remaining issue in the proceedings was damages, the defendants admitted the plaintiff suffered from mesothelioma and that they breached their duty of care, and ss 25(3), 25A and 25B of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act, 1989 did not fall for consideration or application. The prospects of the High Court expressing views relevant to these proceedings in the Utting special leave application were therefore non-existent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Damages Proceedings; Application for Adjournment / Ruling on Defendants' Application to Postpone Resumption of Part Heard Hearing
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'malignant Mesothelioma' 'damages Only Issue' 'special Leave Application' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act, 1987' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Procedural Provisions']
['dust Diseases' 'civil Procedure' 'cross Vesting' 'tort Damages'] ['adjournment' 'malignant Mesothelioma' 'damages Only Issue' 'special Leave Application' 'jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act, 1987' 'dust Diseases Tribunal Procedural Provisions']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Dust Diseases Damages Proceedings; Application for Adjournment / Ruling on Defendants' Application to Postpone Resumption of Part Heard Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the resumption of the hearing should be postponed until after the High Court of Australia special leave application in BHP v Utting and Anor [2005] NSWSC 260.' 'Whether the issues proposed for consideration in the special leave application were relevant where the only remaining issue in the proceedings was damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the only remaining issue in the proceedings was damages, the defendants admitted the plaintiff suffered from mesothelioma and that they breached their duty of care, and ss 25(3), 25A and 25B of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act, 1989 did not fall for consideration or application. The prospects of the High Court expressing views relevant to these proceedings in the Utting special leave application were therefore non-existent.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for adjournment refused.' "The Defendants are to pay plaintiff's costs of today as agreed or assessed."]