Latz v Hansen Family Investments & Anor [2005] NSWDDT 22

Latz v Hansen Family Investments & Anor [2005] NSWDDT 22

Because only damages remained in issue and nothing in the case could be affected by the High Court special leave application in Utting, judgment should not be deferred. On the medical and factual evidence, the plaintiff's mesothelioma caused severe pain, anxiety, depression, loss of mobility and need for care, justifying $150,000 general damages, $15,000 for loss of expectation of life, agreed special damages, and Griffiths v Kerkemeyer expenses for full-time passive care after the September 2004 discharge and full-time active care after the November 2004 discharge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages for Malignant Mesothelioma From Exposure to Asbestos Dust and Fibre in Employment / Ex Tempore Judgment Assessing Damages After Liability Conceded
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff jointly and severally against each defendant, with judgment in the sum of $380,747.31.
Legal Topics
['mesothelioma' 'asbestos Exposure' 'assessment of Damages' 'general Damages' 'loss of Expectation of Life' 'griffiths V Kerkemeyer Expenses' 'sullivan V Gordon Expenses' 'cross Vesting']
['dust Diseases' 'torts' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['mesothelioma' 'asbestos Exposure' 'assessment of Damages' 'general Damages' 'loss of Expectation of Life' 'griffiths V Kerkemeyer Expenses' 'sullivan V Gordon Expenses' 'cross Vesting']

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

Action for Damages for Malignant Mesothelioma From Exposure to Asbestos Dust and Fibre in Employment / Ex Tempore Judgment Assessing Damages After Liability Conceded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether judgment should be deferred pending a High Court of Australia special leave application concerning provisions of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act, 1989.' 'What amount should be awarded for general damages and loss of expectation of life.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to past and future Griffiths v Kerkemeyer expenses for care provided by his partner.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because only damages remained in issue and nothing in the case could be affected by the High Court special leave application in Utting, judgment should not be deferred. On the medical and factual evidence, the plaintiff's mesothelioma caused severe pain, anxiety, depression, loss of mobility and need for care, justifying $150,000 general damages, $15,000 for loss of expectation of life, agreed special damages, and Griffiths v Kerkemeyer expenses for full-time passive care after the September 2004 discharge and full-time active care after the November 2004 discharge.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff jointly and severally against each defendant, with judgment in the sum of $380,747.31.

Orders

  • ['There will be a verdict for the plaintiff jointly and severally against each defendant and judgment in the sum of $380,747.31.' "The defendants will pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed."]