Easther v Amaca Pty Ltd

Case [2001] WASC 328


EASTHER -v- AMACA PTY LTD (formerly JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD) [2001] WASC 328



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2001] WASC 328
Case No:CIV:1914/200129-31 OCTOBER 2001
Coram:SCOTT J30/11/01
29Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Damages assessed at $347,620 plus past expenditure to be verified
C
PDF Version
Parties:BARRY NEVILLE EASTHER
AMACA PTY LTD (formerly JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD)

Catchwords:

Damages
Assessment of damages
Mesothelioma
Future loss of earnings where constant employment uncertain
Loss of capacity to care for mother
Whether general damages or specific award
Burnicle v Cutelli considered and not followed

Legislation:

Nil

Case References:

Arthur Murfett v Wallaby Grip Limited & Anor, unreported; DDT of NSW (Curtis J); Matter No DDT 105 of 2000; 29 August 2000
Bevan v Amaca Pty Ltd, unreported; DDT of NSW (Curtis J); Matter No DDT 254 of 2001; 24 October 2001
Brennan v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd, unreported; DDT of NSW (Curtis J); 2 March 2001
Burnicle v Cutelli [1982] 2 NSWLR 26
Coulthard v CSR Ltd & Anor, unreported; (Owen J); Library No 920496 2 October 1992
Enzio Panizza v Amaca Pty Limited, unreported; DDT of NSW (Little J); Matter No DDT 81 of 2001; 4 July 2001
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Helene Edwards v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd, unreported; DDT of NSW (O'Meally P); Matter No DDT 198 of 2000; 30 November 2000
Husher v Husher & Anor (1999) 197 CLR 138
Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor [1992] ATR 81
Maiward v Doyle [1983] WAR 210
Paul v Rendell (1981) 55 ALJR 371
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v Larosa [1968] 119 CLR 118
Stephen Smith v Sydney Water Corporation Ltd [2000] NSW DDT 100 of 2000; 20 December 2000
Stephen Smith v Sydney Water Corporation Ltd [2000] NSWDDT 13
Sullivan v Gordon (1999) A Tort Rep 81-524
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327

Bowen v Tutte [1990] A Tort Rep 68-079
Bresatz v Przibilla (1962) 108 CLR 541
CSR Ltd v Wren (198) A Tort Rep 81-461
CSR Ltd v Young (1998) 16 NSWCCR 56
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Helene Edwards v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd, unreported; DDT of NSW (Curtis J); 3 December 2000
James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited v Roberts & Anor [1999] NSWCA 314
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Munro v Commonwealth of Australia, unreported; DDT of NSW (Curtis J); Matter No DDT 292 of 2001; 25 September 2001
Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940724; 22 December 1994
Napolitano v CSR Ltd v Midalco Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Seaman J); Library No 940487; 30 August 1994
Neal v CSR & Anor, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 8527; 3 October 1988
Nicholson v Nicholson (1994) 35 NSWLR 308
O'Dwyer…

Continue reading Easther v Amaca Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Easther v Amaca Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 328
Case
[2001] WASC 328
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns a claim by Barry Neville Easther for damages arising from the development of mesothelioma as a consequence of his exposure to asbestos products during his employment. The defendant, Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd), admitted liability for the plaintiff's injuries. The primary legal issues for the court to decide were the appropriate measure and amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, including general damages, loss of future earnings, and care costs. The court assessed the plaintiff's claim based on his age, the impact of his illness on his ability to work, and the care he would require. The court found that the plaintiff's mesothelioma had severely impacted his health, leading to significant pain and loss of function. It determined that the plaintiff's future earning capacity was uncertain, given his age and the intermittent nature of available work. The court awarded general damages of $130,000, loss of future earnings of $86,496, and care costs totaling $347,620, including past out-of-pocket expenses. The total damages assessed, plus past expenditure to be verified, amounted to $347,620.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.