King v Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd - [2013] NSWDDT 4

Dust Diseases Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: King v Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDDT 4
Hearing dates: 23/05/2012; 29/01/2013; 25/03/2013; 26/03/2013
Decision date: 10 April 2013
Before: Kearns J
Decision:
Verdict for the defendant.

Catchwords: Dust diseases; mesothelioma; no direct evidence of exposure to asbestos; whether case could be established on the basis of inferences from circumstantial evidence
Cases Cited: (re Jones-Mashman) Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd No 2 [2009] NSWDDT 24;
Eaton v Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Limited (2004) 1 DDCR 716;
Booth v Amaca Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDDT 8
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bronwyn Jane King (as the Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Victor John King) (Plaintiff)
Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Mr G Little SC, with Mr T Little, Ms J Layani-Ellis and Mr R Foord, instructed by Denniston & Day, appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr D Miller SC, with Mr T Morahan, instructed by Ellison Tillyard Callanan, appeared for the defendant

File Number(s): DDT96/2012

Judgment

Background and claim

Mr King died of malignant mesothelioma on 9 July 2012. Before he died, he commenced proceedings against Caltex. He alleged that the mesothelioma was contracted as a result of Caltex negligently exposing him to asbestos in the course of his work for Caltex. He had been employed by Caltex. His work had taken him over many parts of New South Wales. He visited numerous sites owned by Caltex and also by Golden Fleece after Caltex had taken over Golden Fleece.

On the sites were buildings which were in part constructed of corrugated asbestos materials. They were in varying states of repair. The Golden Fleece sites were in a poorer state of repair than the Caltex sites.

Mr King's work was mainly clerical, administrative and managerial, rather than hands-on.

Whilst numerous sites had buildings constructed of asbestos materials, only one is of significance in this case. That is the site at Bonville. Mr King alleged that, when he visited that site, he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibre which resulted in his mesothelioma.

Evidence was taken from Mr King at his home at Coffs Harbour on 23 May 2012. Since he died, the proceedings have been continued by his widow.

Issue

The parties have helpfully agreed that if the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict, then she is entitled to a verdict in the sum of $311,500. The case is, therefore, a liability case. It is a one issue liability case. The only issue is whether Mr King was exposed to asbestos at Bonville sufficient to cause his mesothelioma.

The competing contentions

Counsel for both parties presented their case to me as a clear one. Mr Little SC, who at different times appeared with different juniors for Mr King and the plaintiff, submitted that though it was a circumstantial case, it was one that was so clear I would be satisfied that it was established even on the criminal standard of proof. Mr Miller SC, who appeared with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read King v Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd 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 4
Decision Date: 10 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of King v Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought damages for mesothelioma, asserting that his condition was caused by his employment with the defendant, Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff could establish a causal link between his employment and his illness in the absence of direct evidence of exposure to asbestos. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of causation in personal injury claims, particularly in cases where there is no direct evidence of exposure to a harmful substance. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff could rely on circumstantial evidence to establish the requisite causal link, and if so, what standard of proof would apply.

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that his mesothelioma was caused by his employment with Caltex. The court held that while it is possible to establish causation based on circumstantial evidence, in this case, the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the required standard. The court emphasised that a mere possibility of causation is not enough; there must be a preponderance of evidence pointing to the likelihood of the causal connection.

The Federal Court found in favour of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The court's decision underscored the necessity for claimants to provide compelling evidence to establish causation in the absence of direct proof. The court did not make any further orders beyond the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict for the defendant.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	King v Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDDT 4
Hearing dates:	23/05/2012; 29/01/2013; 25/03/2013; 26/03/2013
Decision date:	10 April 2013
Before:	Kearns J
Decision:	Verdict for the defendant.
Catchwords:	Dust diseases; mesothelioma; no direct evidence of exposure to asbestos; whether case could be established on the basis of inferences from circumstantial evidence
Cases Cited:	(re Jones-Mashman) Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd No 2 [2009] NSWDDT 24; Eaton v Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Limited (2004) 1 DDCR 716; Booth v Amaca Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDDT 8
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Bronwyn Jane King (as the Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Victor John King) (Plaintiff) Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Mr G Little SC, with Mr T Little, Ms J Layani-Ellis and Mr R Foord, instructed by Denniston & Day, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr D Miller SC, with Mr T Morahan, instructed by Ellison Tillyard Callanan, appeared for the defendant
File Number(s):	DDT96/2012