Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales heard an appeal from a decision of the Dust Diseases Tribunal concerning a claim for damages arising from asbestos exposure. The appellant, Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd, sought to appeal a decision that found it liable to the respondent, Mr. Stavar, for negligence. The dispute centred on whether Caltex owed a duty of care to Mr. Stavar, who contracted an asbestos-related disease due to his wife, a former employee of Caltex, bringing home contaminated work clothes.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Dust Diseases Tribunal erred in law in finding that Caltex owed a duty of care to Mr. Stavar, and whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted and applied the relevant Queensland legislation, specifically the *Factories and Shops Act 1960* (Qld) and the Asbestos Rule 1971, in relation to statutory duties. The court also considered whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the duty of care owed by a principal to a third party in relation to the activities of an independent subcontractor.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, affirmed that the multifactorial approach, rather than a singular focus on proximity, is the correct method for determining the existence of a novel duty of care. The court reasoned that the class of persons at risk, including those in a domestic environment exposed to asbestos dust brought home on work clothes, was sufficiently identified and foreseeable, aligning with available medical and occupational health and safety knowledge. Regarding the statutory duty under the *Factories and Shops Act 1960* (Qld), the court found that the Asbestos Rule 1971 did not extend to protecting individuals in the domestic environment, thus the statutory duty did not encompass the plaintiff's situation. However, the court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the Tribunal had failed to adequately address all relevant factual issues concerning the duty of care owed by Caltex as a principal to a third party in relation to the hazardous activities of its contractor, particularly concerning the knowledge of the risk and the degree of control exercised.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, granted leave to cross-appeal, and allowed the cross-appeal. The court set aside the part of the Tribunal's costs order that refused costs to the plaintiff for the period before 1974 and remitted that issue, along with attendant questions of duty of care and breach for the period prior to 1974, to the Tribunal for rehearing. Caltex was ordered to pay Mr. Stavar's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.