James Hardie and Coy Pty Ltd v Carley

James Hardie and Coy Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr Carley, who alleged he contracted asbestosis as a result of his employment with the appellant. The respondent had been employed by the appellant as a labourer between 1959 and 1965.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent in relation to the risk of contracting asbestosis, whether that duty had been breached, and whether the respondent's claim was barred by the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). Specifically, the court considered the standard of care expected of an employer in the 1960s regarding the dangers of asbestos exposure and whether the appellant had taken reasonable precautions to protect its employees from such risks.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent to take reasonable steps to prevent injury from foreseeable risks, including those arising from asbestos exposure. The court held that by 1959, the dangers of asbestos were sufficiently well-known that the appellant ought to have taken precautions to minimise the respondent's exposure. The court determined that the appellant had breached this duty by failing to provide adequate ventilation, protective equipment, and by not warning the respondent of the dangers. The court also found that the respondent's claim was not statute-barred, as the cause of action accrued when the disease manifested, which was within the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the District Court in favour of the respondent was affirmed.