WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Ltd & Anor - [2010] HCATrans 160

[2010] HCATrans 160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B10 of 2010

B e t w e e n -
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
Appellant
and
AMACA PTY LTD (ACN 000 035 512)
First Respondent
SELTSAM PTY LTD (ACN 000 003 734)
Second Respondent

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON TUESDAY, 22 JUNE 2010, AT 12.00 PM

MR W. SOFRONOFF, QC (Solicitor‑General of the State of Queensland): May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR K.F. HOLYOAK, for the appellant. (instructed by Bruce Thomas Lawyers )

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR R.C. MORTON, for the respondents. (instructed by Holman Webb Lawyers and CLS Lawyers)

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Sofronoff.

MR SOFRONOFF: Your Honours, this was a case stated, which appears at page 46 of the appeal book. We have discovered that the appeal book is deficient in that it omits some pages of the reasons of the Court of Appeal. Could I hand up a set of the reasons of the Court of Appeal so your Honours have it completely. Mr Thomson was a worker and he contracted mesothelioma. That was an injury for the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. In April 2006 he received a compensation payment in respect of that injury. He died two months later not having sued anybody at common law for his injury. The appellant sued the defendants to recover the sum it had paid as compensation. It has a right to sue to recover the sum under section 207B(7) of the Act and the section provides that for that purpose it is subrogated to the rights of the worker.

Section 66 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) deals with the abolition of the rule that a cause of action such as this dies when the plaintiff dies and it provides that the cause of action survives for the benefit of the estate. However, it goes on to limit the damages recoverable by the estate in such an action. No damages can be recovered relevantly for pain and suffering and no damages can be recovered for future earnings. The question in this case is whether those limitations in section 66 of the Succession Act apply to limit the insurer’s right of indemnity conferred by section 207B(7) of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

GUMMOW J: Did section 66 replace an earlier Queensland statute?

MR SOFRONOFF: Did it replace an earlier Queensland statute?

GUMMOW J: Yes. What is the magic of 15 October 1940?

MR SOFRONOFF: I will have to look at that over lunch, your Honour, and tell you the history of section 66. If I can take your Honours to 207B, I have handed up to your Honours’ associates a bundle of provisions from the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act

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 WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Ltd & Anor 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: [2010] HCATrans 160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the liability of Amaca Pty Ltd and another respondent (Amaca) to WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover). The dispute arose from a claim by a worker, Mr. John William Thompson, who suffered from asbestos-related disease. WorkCover had paid statutory benefits to Mr. Thompson and sought to recover these payments from Amaca, alleging that Amaca's negligence caused or contributed to Mr. Thompson's condition. The core of the dispute was whether Amaca owed a duty of care to Mr. Thompson in relation to his exposure to asbestos.

The High Court was required to determine whether Amaca owed a duty of care to Mr. Thompson, a worker who was exposed to asbestos dust during his employment with a company that used Amaca's products. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the duty of care extended to protecting workers from the foreseeable risk of contracting an asbestos-related disease, even if the exposure occurred through an intermediate employer. The central legal question was whether Amaca could be held liable for the harm suffered by Mr. Thompson, given the nature of his employment and the way in which the asbestos exposure occurred.

The Court's reasoning focused on the established principles of negligence, particularly the duty of care owed by manufacturers and suppliers of potentially dangerous products. It was held that a duty of care can arise in circumstances where a manufacturer or supplier knows, or ought to know, that their product is likely to cause harm to individuals who come into contact with it, even if that contact is not direct. The Court considered the foreseeability of harm and the proximity between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury. The principles applied affirmed that a duty of care can extend to protecting individuals from foreseeable risks of injury arising from the use of a product, even in complex supply chains.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that Amaca did owe a duty of care to Mr. Thompson. The Court held that Amaca was liable for the harm suffered by Mr. Thompson, and therefore WorkCover was entitled to recover the statutory benefits paid to him.

Orders