Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis & Ors - [2009] HCATrans 296

[2009] HCATrans 296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P13 of 2009

B e t w e e n -
AMACA PTY LTD (ACN 000 035 512)
Appellant
and
TERESA ELLIS AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL STEVEN COTTON (DEC)
First Respondent
THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent
MILLENNIUM INORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD (ACN 008 683 627)
Third Respondent

Office of the Registry
Perth No P14 of 2009

B e t w e e n -
THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Appellant
and
TERESA ELLIS AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL STEVEN COTTON (DEC)
First Respondent
AMACA PTY LTD (ACN 000 035 512)
Second Respondent
MILLENNIUM INORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD (ACN 008 683 627)
Third Respondent

Office of the Registry
Perth No P12 of 2009

B e t w e e n -
MILLENNIUM INORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD (ACN 008 683 627)
Appellant
and
TERESA ELLIS AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL STEVEN COTTON (DEC)
First Respondent
THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent
AMACA PTY LTD (ACN 000 035 512)
Third Respondent

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2009, AT 10.16 AM

__________________

MR G.M. WATSON, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR J.C. SHELLER for Amaca Pty Ltd in each of the three appeals. (instructed by Minter Ellison Lawyers)

MR M.L. ABBOTT, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR S.J. DOYLE, for the State of South Australia in each of the three appeals. (instructed by State Solicitor for Western Australia)

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR N.J. OWENS, for the appellant, Millennium, in the appeal which is P12 of 2009 and for the third respondent in each of the other two matters. (instructed by Lavan Legal)

MR B.W. WALKER, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.R.C. GORDON, for the first respondent in each of the appeals. (instructed by Slater & Gordon)

FRENCH CJ: Mr Walker, before we hear from Mr Watson, just to have a sense of the parameters within which this debate is to be conducted, we look to 63 and 90, I think, in your submissions in P12 and ask whether it is your case that the asbestos exposure – it is put on the basis that the asbestos exposure materially contributed to Mr Cotton’s disease and it is within that framework we are operating?

MR WALKER: Yes.

FRENCH CJ: Yes, all right.

GUMMOW J: At paragraphs 63 and 90 of your written submissions, is that right?

MR WALKER: Yes. I hope 63 makes it clear that is an attempt to frame a question that we say is the relevant issue – was the relevant issue. It follows that my answer to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis & Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] HCATrans 296
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amaca Pty Ltd and Ors v Ellis & Ors concerned a claim for damages for dust diseases brought by a number of plaintiffs against various companies, including Amaca Pty Ltd, which had manufactured and supplied asbestos products. The plaintiffs alleged that their dust diseases were caused by exposure to asbestos fibres during their employment. The primary dispute revolved around the plaintiffs' entitlement to damages, particularly in light of the defendants' contention that the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiffs' claims for damages for dust diseases were maintainable in the absence of proof of a specific date of injury, as required by the relevant limitation legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of the "date of injury" rule in the context of progressive diseases like asbestosis, where the damage accrues over time and the precise moment of injury is difficult to ascertain. This raised questions about when a cause of action accrues for the purposes of limitation periods in dust disease claims.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that for a dust disease claim to be maintainable, the plaintiff must prove that the cause of action accrued within the relevant limitation period. The court affirmed the principle that a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff suffers damage. However, in the context of progressive diseases, the court clarified that the cause of action accrues at the time when the plaintiff first suffers damage, even if that damage is not yet manifest or diagnosed. The court reasoned that the limitation period begins to run from the earliest point at which the plaintiff has a recognisable injury, regardless of whether the full extent of the disease is known. This approach aimed to balance the rights of plaintiffs to seek compensation for their injuries with the need for defendants to have certainty regarding potential claims.

The High Court allowed the appeals, finding that the Supreme Court of New South Wales had erred in its application of the limitation provisions. The court remitted the matters to the Supreme Court for further determination in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment.

Orders