Seltsam Pty Limited v McGuiness; James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29

Seltsam Pty Limited v McGuiness; James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29

The Dust Diseases Tribunal erred by failing to assess the strength and quality of epidemiological evidence when concluding causation in the specific case; the evidence does not rise above possibility to satisfy balance of probabilities; therefore, the finding that asbestos exposure caused or materially contributed to the respondent's renal cell carcinoma cannot be sustained.

Parties
Appellant: Seltsam Pty Limited; Appellant: James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited; First Respondent: Robert George McGuiness
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Dust Diseases Tribunal
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Epidemiological Evidence, Dust Diseases, Expert Opinion
Torts Evidence Appellate Law Negligence Causation Epidemiological Evidence Dust Diseases Expert Opinion

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 3 Authorities cited 68 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seltsam Pty Limited

Appellant

James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited

Appellant

Robert George McGuiness

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Dust Diseases Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exposure to asbestos caused renal cell carcinoma in the respondent
  2. 2 Whether epidemiological evidence can establish causation on balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the appellate jurisdiction was governed by the pre-amendment or amended s 32 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The Dust Diseases Tribunal erred by failing to assess the strength and quality of epidemiological evidence when concluding causation in the specific case; the evidence does not rise above possibility to satisfy balance of probabilities; therefore, the finding that asbestos exposure caused or materially contributed to the respondent's renal cell carcinoma cannot be sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Set aside order 2 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal