White v Amaca Pty Limited & Ors [2011] NSWDDT 6

White v Amaca Pty Limited & Ors [2011] NSWDDT 6

Only items 2 and 4 of the plaintiff's s 25B notice, relating to findings that all more-than-de minimis asbestos exposures within an acceptable latency period materially contribute to mesothelioma, properly satisfy the statutory requirements and are allowed; all other items are rejected for failing to state an issue of fact of a general nature or for asserting legal principles not within s 25B's ambit.

Parties
Plaintiff: Suzanne White; First Defendant: Amaca Pty Limited; Second Defendant/cross Claimant: University of Newcastle; Third Defendant/cross Defendant: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of S 25 B Notice
Outcome
s 25B notice allowed in part
Legal Topics
Dust Diseases, Foreseeability, Causation, Res Judicata/issue Estoppel, Procedural Notices
Tort Law Occupational Health and Safety Evidence Dust Diseases Foreseeability Causation Res Judicata/issue Estoppel Procedural Notices

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suzanne White

Plaintiff

Amaca Pty Limited

First Defendant

University of Newcastle

Second Defendant/cross Claimant

State of New South Wales

Third Defendant/cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of S 25 B Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether items in plaintiff's s 25B notice comply with Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 and Dust Diseases Tribunal Rules 1990
  2. 2 Whether the notice was served within a reasonable time
  3. 3 Which statements may be properly relied on as prior determinations of issues of a general nature

Ratio Decidendi

Only items 2 and 4 of the plaintiff's s 25B notice, relating to findings that all more-than-de minimis asbestos exposures within an acceptable latency period materially contribute to mesothelioma, properly satisfy the statutory requirements and are allowed; all other items are rejected for failing to state an issue of fact of a general nature or for asserting legal principles not within s 25B's ambit.

Court Disposition

s 25B notice allowed in part

Orders

  • The s 25B notice is allowed only in respect of items 2 and 4, marked as Exhibit PX29.
  • All other items in the s 25B notice are rejected.