Comcare v Howard Smith & Patrick Travel P/L

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

Dust Diseases Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Comcare v Howard Smith & Patrick Travel P/L [2013] NSWDDT 6
Hearing dates:17, 18, 19 April 2013
Decision date: 21 June 2013
Before: Finnane J
Decision:

See paragraph [45]

Catchwords: Dust Diseases - mesothelioma - employment history - exposure - knowledge of presence of asbestos by employer
Liability - tortfeasor - duty of care - foreseeability - injury - breach
Practice and Procedure - proceedings following settlement with plaintiff - delay - evidence
Legislation Cited: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 s 5
s. 25B of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act1989
Cases Cited: Re Jones-Mashman (Amaca v CSR [No 2]) [2009] NSWDDT 24
Stavar v Caltex Refineries (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDDT 22
Crimmins v the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1
Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee v Henderson (representing the Estate of Crimmins) [2000] VSCA 216
Gibson v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [2000] NSWCA 179
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Comcare (Plaintiff)
Howard Smith and Patrick Travel P/L (Defendants
Representation: JC Sheller (Plaintiff)
GK Parker SC (Defendants)
Australian Government Solicitor (Plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth (Defendants)
File Number(s):65/11

Judgment

Findings of Fact

  1. I make the following findings of fact:

i   The late Mr Lindsay was employed by the defendant at all material times.

ii   The defendant was a registered employer of waterside workers at Port Kembla.

iii   The late Mr Lindsay was not a registered waterside worker.

iv   The late Mr Lindsay worked alongside waterside workers, sometimes in the holds of ships, sometimes on steam winches and at times was responsible for washing the clothes of Waterside workers.

v   Frequently when he worked in the holds of ships, he encountered loose asbestos particles and breathed in those particles.

vi   The steam pipes on the steam winches were covered with asbestos rope which was frequently in a bad condition, flaking and giving off particles of asbestos into the air.

vii   The late Mr Lindsay breathed in these particles while he was working on the winches.

viii   The clothing of the Waterside workers was frequently covered in asbestos particles which created clouds of dust that were breathed in by the late Mr Lindsay.

ix   The defendant was aware that Mr Lindsay was carrying out the work described above alongside the Waterside workers, and because he was working so closely with them was exposed to the breathing in of asbestos particles.

Background of the Proceedings

  1. David Lindsay was born in the United Kingdom on 8 August 1939.

  1. The defendant was incorporated on 31 December 1936.

  1. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board was incorporated on 18 July 1949. The plaintiff in these proceedings assumed liability for the responsibilities of the board.

  1. Mr Lindsay arrived in Australia in 1961 and worked at Port Kembla between 1964 and 1982. His claim was that the defendant employed him during those years and that the successor to the Board was responsible for stevedoring operations at Port Kembla and because of this owed him a duty of care to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Comcare v Howard Smith & Patrick Travel P/L 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
[2013] NSWDDT 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Comcare, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, initiated proceedings against Howard Smith and Patrick Travel P/L, seeking compensation for mesothelioma contracted by an individual who had been employed by the defendant. The individual's employment history indicated exposure to asbestos during his time with the defendant, and the question of whether the defendant had knowledge of the presence of asbestos was central to the dispute. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether this duty was breached. This involved assessing the foreseeability of the injury and the extent of the employer's knowledge regarding asbestos exposure. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of any delay in initiating proceedings on the admissibility and weight of evidence.

The court concluded that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, which was breached by failing to adequately protect the plaintiff from exposure to asbestos. The court found that the employer had knowledge of the presence of asbestos and that this knowledge was sufficient to establish foreseeability of harm. The court also noted that while delay in initiating proceedings could impact the weight of the evidence, it did not preclude the court from considering the merits of the case. The court ordered that Comcare be compensated for the mesothelioma contracted by the plaintiff, with specific details regarding the quantum of damages provided in the final orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [45]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.