21 Jul 2020
The Court exercised its broad discretion under r 5.73 to extend the 12‑month service period by six months because the plaintiff had a good reason to delay service given the Calver judgment and pending appeal which could extinguish her cause of action, and serving earlier would likely have been futile and exposed her to adverse costs consequences.
31 May 2019
Epidemiological literature permits only a possible association between asbestos and oesophageal adenocarcinoma limited to heavy, prolonged exposure; claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he experienced heavy or prolonged asbestos exposure (radiology lacked signs of asbestos disease and work history did not establish sufficient disturbance/exposure), so s30 requirements were not met and ACC's decision to decline cover was correct.
16 May 2019
Appeal dismissed because claimant failed to establish, on the evidence, that his COPD is caused or materially contributed to by occupational asbestos exposure under s30; imaging and specialist opinions showed no asbestos disease and attributed the condition to long-term smoking, and no Schedule 2 disease was identified, so the s30 three-part test was not satisfied.
3 May 2018
On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to establish employment 'involving exposure' to asbestos beyond background/ambient levels during the claimant's tenure; ACC had complied with s 57 investigation obligations and its expert evidence showed no plausible workplace exposure sufficient to satisfy s 30(3), therefore ACC validly declined cover under s 60 and the review decision was correctly upheld; appeal dismissed.
19 Apr 2018
Mesothelioma is a disease and, absent qualifying statutory carve-outs (s20(2)(e)-(h)), is excluded from the definition of personal injury under s26(2); alternatively, even accepting asbestos causation generally, the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the asbestos inhalation occurred on the specific occasion required by s25(1)(b); accordingly ACC's decisions declining cover are affirmed and the reviewer erred in holding that mesothelioma per se met the statutory definition of personal injury.
14 May 2003
On the balance of probabilities the appellant's pleural fibrosis was caused by occupational asbestos exposure because the specialist respiratory opinion and occupational exposure history were given greater weight than contrary occupational opinions; however, constrictive pericarditis was not shown to be caused by asbestos because the cardiologist and histopathologist found no supportive histological evidence and a viral/idiopathic cause was more likely, so the appeal is allowed in part and the review decision is modified accordingly.
30 Jan 1997
On the balance of probabilities the appellant suffered mesothelioma caused by inhalation of asbestos occurring in the course of employment (either at the freezing works or as a bulldozer driver); the presence of asbestos in the employment environment but not in non‑employment, and the materially greater risk for those performing the employment tasks, satisfy s7; therefore the injury falls within s8(2)(b) and is covered by the 1992 Act as of the date of first treatment in late August/early September 1992.