(Re: Carbines) Eraring Energy v Babcock International Ltd

[2005] NSWDDT 9

Dust Diseases Tribunal

of New South Wales

CITATION:	(Re: Carbines) Eraring Energy v Babcock International Ltd & Ors [2005] NSWDDT 9
MATTER NUMBER(S):	34 of 92/1
JUDGMENT OF:	McIntyre A J at 1
:-
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	02/25/2005

JUDGMENT:

1. In this matter the cross-claimant Eraring Energy seeks contribution pursuant to s 5 of the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1946 in relation to a liability incurred by it pursuant to a judgment entered on 11 February 2002 in favour of Sydney Edwin Carbines in the sum of $95,000 including costs. In those proceedings Eraring Energy was the only defendant.

2. The liability of Eraring arose in connection with exposure of Mr Carbines to asbestos dust and fibre whilst working at one or more power stations between 1943 and 1947. The cross-claimant seeks contribution from Babcock International Ltd, Babcock Australia Ltd, Wallaby Grip Ltd and Wallaby Grip (BAE) Pty Ltd, it being claimed by Eraring Energy (to whom I shall refer as Eraring) that those cross-defendants were tort feasors who would have been liable if sued by Mr Carbines. As in the previous proceedings in which I have just given judgment on a separate determination (known as the Murray proceedings), Eraring Energy has filed a notice pursuant to s 25B with the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act. BIL asserts that many parts of that notice do not contain determinations of issues of a general nature within the meaning of s 25B of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act. As in the matter of Murray the parties have consented to an order under Pt 31 r 2 of the Supreme Court Rules for a separate determination of the issue of whether the disputed parts of the s 25B notice contain or reflect the determination by the Tribunal of issues of a general nature.

3. The s 25B notice in these proceedings is in the same terms as in the s 25B notice in the matter of Murray in which I have just given judgment. The parties have adopted for the purposes of this separate determination in these proceedings the submissions made in the matter of Murray. Accordingly, for the reasons set out by me in my separate determination in the matter of Murray, I also find in these proceedings that the following paragraphs of the amended s 25B notice filed by the cross-claimant do not raise determinations of issues of a general nature within the meaning of s 25B of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989:

A(2), D(2) and (3), F(1), H(1) I (1) to (24), J(1)(2), M(1) and N(1).

4. I reserve question of costs.