James Hardie & Co v Roberts

This matter concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by James Hardie & Co Pty Limited (the appellant) against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The dispute arose from a claim by Mr. Roberts (the respondent) for damages for personal injury allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos products manufactured by the appellant. The core of the dispute involved the appellant's liability for the respondent's asbestos-related illness.

The High Court was required to determine, among other things, whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent in relation to the manufacture and supply of asbestos products, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. A further issue was the application of the relevant limitation periods to the respondent's claim, particularly in light of the latent nature of asbestos-related diseases. The Court also considered the principles governing the assessment of damages in such cases.

In its reasoning, the High Court affirmed the established principles of negligence, confirming that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to those who might foreseeably be injured by their products. The Court analysed the evidence concerning the appellant's knowledge of the dangers of asbestos at the relevant times and concluded that the appellant had breached its duty of care to the respondent. The Court also addressed the complexities of limitation periods for latent injuries, applying established legal principles to determine that the respondent's claim was not statute-barred. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Full Federal Court.