Williams v Amaca Pty Ltd - [2020] NSWDDT 2

Dust Diseases Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v Amaca Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDDT 2
Hearing dates: 5 and 10 March 2020
Date of orders: 11 March 2020
Decision date: 11 March 2020
Before: Scotting J
Decision:
(1)   Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $709,613.
(2)   The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed, on the ordinary basis.

Catchwords: DUST DISEASES – COSTS – assessment of damages
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989
Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942
Cases Cited: FAI Allianz Insurance Ltd v Lang [2004] NSWCA 413
Fuller v Avichem Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 305
Londos v Amaca Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDDT 7
State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485
Category: Costs
Parties: Denis Williams (Plaintiff)
Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited (Defendant)
Ron Bohm Roofing Pty Ltd (First Cross Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:    S Tzouganatos (Plaintiff)
      A Fronis (Defendant) 5 March 2020
      I Griscti (Defendant) 10 March 2020
       Solicitors:   vbr Lawyers (Plaintiff)
      Holman Webb Lawyers                (Defendant/Cross Claimant)
      McCabe Curwood (First Cross             Defendant)

File Number(s): 429/2019
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiff sues the defendant seeking damages for personal injury after contracting mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos contained in the defendant’s products.
Liability was not in issue and the matter proceeded as an assessment of damages.
The plaintiff read an affidavit sworn by him on 4 March 2020. He was cross-examined before me at The Tweed Hospital on 5 March 2020. At the time that the plaintiff gave evidence he was a patient in the Coronary Care Unit. He gave evidence seated in a chair and he was on oxygen. The plaintiff was hooked up to a machine that was monitoring his heart. An alarm sounded at various times during the course of his evidence at which time he was required to rest until the alarm ceased. The plaintiff appeared to be mentally acute and was endeavouring to answer the questions put to him in detail. This often made him breathless, leading to the sounding of the alarm. The plaintiff was discharged from The Tweed Hospital on 6 March 2020 and is being cared for at home by his wife.
This judgment is being delivered quickly because the plaintiff has an economic loss claim that would not survive his death, I am concerned that his health is precarious and I have to leave shortly to go to Western Australia to take evidence in another mesothelioma claim.

The Plaintiff’s Case

The evidence of the plaintiff

The plaintiff’s background, work history and exposure to asbestos

The plaintiff was born on 22 February 1948 in Narrandera, New South Wales. He attended Narrabeen Boys High School, leaving school at the age of 13 years and 10 months. After leaving school, he attended the Sydney Technical College (STC) for about 18 months completing…

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.

Continue reading Williams v Amaca Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Williams v Amaca Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDDT 2
Case: [2020] NSWDDT 2
Decision Date: 11 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Williams v Amaca Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Williams, sought damages for the personal injuries he suffered due to asbestos exposure while employed by the defendant, Amaca Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Williams alleged that his prolonged exposure to asbestos dust during his employment resulted in serious health complications, including mesothelioma. Amaca Pty Ltd denied the allegations, arguing that the injuries were not directly caused by their actions and that the plaintiff's claims were overstated.

The central legal issues before the court were the extent to which the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's mesothelioma was a direct result of his employment with Amaca Pty Ltd, and if so, the amount of compensation to be awarded. The court also had to address the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's claims for damages were excessive.

The court found that Williams' mesothelioma was indeed caused by his exposure to asbestos during his employment with Amaca Pty Ltd. The evidence presented demonstrated a clear link between his work conditions and his illness, leading the court to hold the defendant liable. The court awarded Williams damages of $709,613, reflecting the severity of his injuries and the impact on his life. Additionally, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $709,613.

(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed, on the ordinary basis.

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:	Williams v Amaca Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDDT 2
Hearing dates:	5 and 10 March 2020
Date of orders:	11 March 2020
Decision date:	11 March 2020
Before:	Scotting J
Decision:	(1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $709,613. (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed, on the ordinary basis.
Catchwords:	DUST DISEASES – COSTS – assessment of damages
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942
Cases Cited:	FAI Allianz Insurance Ltd v Lang [2004] NSWCA 413 Fuller v Avichem Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 305 Londos v Amaca Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDDT 7 State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Denis Williams (Plaintiff) Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited (Defendant) Ron Bohm Roofing Pty Ltd (First Cross Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: S Tzouganatos (Plaintiff) A Fronis (Defendant) 5 March 2020 I Griscti (Defendant) 10 March 2020 Solicitors: vbr Lawyers (Plaintiff) Holman Webb Lawyers (Defendant/Cross Claimant) McCabe Curwood (First Cross Defendant)
File Number(s):	429/2019
Publication restriction:	None