Petrovski v Bluescope Steel and Anor

[2007] NSWDDT 33

Dust Diseases Tribunal

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Petrovski v Bluescope Steel and Anor [2007] NSWDDT 33
PARTIES:	Stefan Petrovski (Plaintiff) Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Allianz Australia Ltd (Second Defendant)
MATTER NUMBER(S):	113 of 2003
JUDGMENT OF:	O'Meally P
CATCHWORDS:	Dust Diseases Tribunal :-
DATES OF HEARING:	18 December 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 December 2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	18 December 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	Mr K J Fowlie of Slater & Gordon appeared for the Plaintiff Mr T M Rowles instructed by Sparke Helmore appeared for the Defendant

JUDGMENT:

RULING

O'MEALLY P

1. Stefan Petrovski, the plaintiff, has settled his differences with Allianz Australia Ltd (Allianz) and seeks to have judgment entered. Allianz is the insurer which stands in the shoes of Metal Manufacturers Ltd (MML). MML no longer exists and has been removed from the register of companies. The plaintiff alleged employment by MML and by the company which is now known as Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (Bluescope), and that he contracted asbestos related pleural disease (ARPD) as a result of exposure to asbestos in the course of those employments. ARPD is a divisible injury.

2. In compliance with the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation 2007 (the Regulation), a contributions assessor has been appointed. Mr Rowles, who appears for Bluescope, objects to the entry of judgment at this stage and has invited me to adjourn the application until the contribution assessment has been completed. Contribution assessment is not due to be completed until a date long hence.

3. The Regulation provides for arbitrary determination of contribution between defendants and cross-defendants, some of which determinations, experience demonstrates, do not accord with the justice and merits of the cases in which they are made.

4. The policy of insurance which brings Allianz to court gave its insured a limited cover, namely, $50,000. As earlier observed, Mr Rowles wishes the process of contribution to proceed and submits that on the facts of this case, the Regulation requires a contribution assessment take place. Mr Fowlie who appears for the plaintiff wants his judgment.

of the Regulation provides that during the claims resolution process proceedings are deferred and a claim is not subject to case management by the Tribunal. However, cl 19(2) provides:

(2) This clause does not affect the application to the practice and procedures of the Tribunal with respect to:
(a)-(e) ...

(g)–(i) ...

6. Clause 19(2)(f) authorises me to enter judgment and I am of the view that I am bound to do so.

7. There will be verdict and judgment in accordance with par 1 of the agreement. I note paras 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Mr K J Fowlie of Slater & Gordon appeared for the Plaintiff

Mr T M Rowles instructed by Sparke Helmore appeared for the Defendant