Amaca Pty Ltd v Booth

Amaca Pty Ltd and Amaba Pty Ltd appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales. The first respondent, Mr Booth, had sued the appellants alleging that his contraction of mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to asbestos fibres in breach of their respective duties of care. The Tribunal had accepted the first respondent's expert evidence that cumulative exposure to asbestos contributed to mesothelioma, despite the appellants leading epidemiological evidence disputing a link between asbestos exposure in Mr Booth's profession and the risk of mesothelioma.

The High Court was required to determine whether the inference of fact concerning Mr Booth's contraction of mesothelioma was reasonably open on the evidence presented. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether it was more probable than not that the appellants' negligence was a cause of Mr Booth's disease, and whether issues of causation in this context lay within common knowledge and experience, or required the role of expert medical evidence. A further issue was whether the Tribunal had erred in point of law, within the meaning of s 32 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW), when deciding that the appellants' negligence was more probably than not a cause of Mr Booth's disease.

The Court reasoned that the evidence supported the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellants' products had causally contributed to Mr Booth's disease. It was not disputed that Mr Booth's mesothelioma was caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibre, that chrysotile asbestos had the capacity to cause mesothelioma, and that the brake linings manufactured by the appellants contained chrysotile asbestos, which Mr Booth inhaled. The primary judge had found that exposures from other activities were insignificant, and that all exposures to chrysotile asbestos, other than trivial or de minimis exposure, occurring within a specific latency period, materially contributed to the cause of mesothelioma. The Court accepted the expert evidence presented, which provided the necessary scientific knowledge to understand the cause of the disease and stated conclusions based on that knowledge.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.