Cadoo v BHP Billiton Limited

The case of Cadoo v BHP Billiton Limited involved the plaintiff, Cadoo, who alleged that he suffered injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by the defendant, BHP Billiton Limited. The dispute centred around the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to protect the plaintiff from the foreseeable risk of asbestos exposure. The matter was heard in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether BHP Billiton Limited owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and if it was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer harm from exposure to asbestos. Additionally, the court had to consider the quantum of damages, if any, the plaintiff was entitled to due to the alleged negligence of the defendant. The court also needed to determine the reliability of the expert evidence provided by the parties.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence provided by the experts, specifically focusing on the methodology and conclusions of the calculations regarding the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos. The court rejected the plaintiff's expert's time-weighted average calculation and the defendant's expert's reconstruction of exposure levels over the plaintiff's career. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the exact level of exposure to asbestos but found that the risk of harm was foreseeable. It was noted that the defendant failed to measure dust levels, including asbestos, in the workplace, which was a reasonable precaution given the known risks associated with asbestos exposure. The court determined that the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and that it was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff could suffer harm from asbestos exposure.

The court ordered that the defendant, BHP Billiton Limited, was liable for the plaintiff's injuries due to its failure to adequately protect the plaintiff from the foreseeable risks of asbestos exposure. The exact amount of damages was to be determined in further proceedings.