Hudson v Amaca Pty Ltd

In the case of Hudson v Amaca Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, as the administrator of the estate of Keith Hudson, sought compensation for the death of the deceased, who had been exposed to asbestos during his employment. The defendant, Amaca Pty Ltd, was a company involved in the manufacture of asbestos products. The dispute involved the assessment of damages under Australian Capital Territory law, with particular focus on the deceased's exposure to asbestos in both New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. The court had to decide on the applicable choice of law principles, the assessment of general damages and loss of expectation of life, and the calculation of damages under Lord Campbell's Act for the benefit of the deceased's son, who had severe disabilities.

The primary legal issues revolved around the choice of law applicable to the tort, the nature and extent of the damages claimable for the deceased's death, and the assessment of damages for the loss of services provided by the deceased under Lord Campbell's Act. The court had to determine whether the requirement to give notice of claim was procedural or substantive, and whether it was appropriate to use the commercial cost of care to calculate damages for the benefit of the deceased's son. The court also needed to address whether the son required 24-hour care or if the care provided was standby supervision or indirect care.

The court held that the law of the place where the tort was committed, the lex loci delicti, governed the assessment of damages. In determining the damages, the court concluded that the requirement to give notice of claim was procedural rather than substantive. The court assessed general damages and loss of expectation of life under Australian Capital Territory law. In calculating damages for loss of services under Lord Campbell's Act, the court found it appropriate to use the commercial cost of care, considering the son's severe disabilities and the level of care provided by the deceased. The court concluded that the son did not require 24-hour care but rather standby supervision or indirect care, which was provided by the deceased and his wife.

The final orders of the court were that the damages in the claim brought by the plaintiff for the benefit of the estate of the late Keith Hudson were assessed at $475,840.38. The damages in the claim brought by the plaintiff under Lord Campbell’s Act for the benefit of Joseph Hudson were assessed at $2,664,703 plus the costs of funds management. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the amount of $475,840.38 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings to date, and deferred entry of final judgment pending ascertainment of the costs of funds management. The proceedings were stood over generally with liberty to restore on 7 days notice.