Zanetic v Amaca Pty Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

Dust Diseases Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zanetic v Amaca Pty Limited [2017] NSWDDT 5
Hearing dates: 21 June 2017, 5 and 6 July 2017
Date of orders: 07 July 2017
Decision date: 07 July 2017
Before: Judge D. Russell
Decision:

1 Judgment for the plaintiff for $455,007.54
2 Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs

Catchwords: DUST DISEASES – exposure - damages
Legislation Cited: Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989
Civil Liability Act 2002
Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942
Cases Cited: Amaca Pty limited v Hicks [2011] NSWCA 295
Amaca Pty limited v Novek [2009] NSWCA 50
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; 139 CLR 161
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Marko Zanetic (plaintiff)
Amaca Pty Limited (defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P. Semmler QC on 21 June 2017 (plaintiff)
Mr J. McIntyre SC on 5 and 6 July 2017 (plaintiff)
Mr J. Sheller (defendant)

  Solicitors:
Turner Freeman (plaintiff)
Mills Oakley (defendant)
File Number(s): DDT 9/2017

Judgment

  1. Mr Marko Zanetic has sued Amaca Pty Limited seeking damages for the disease of mesothelioma.

  2. The issues in the case are:

  1. Exposure to James Hardie asbestos cement building products;

  2. Damages;

Employment and Exposure

  1. The plaintiff was born on 29 May 1939 in Croatia and is 78 years of age. He came to Australia at the age of 22 in June 1962. The plaintiff obtained work as a self-employed carpenter shortly after coming to Australia in 1962. He worked as a sole trader until 1970 doing renovation work all over Sydney. There was cottage work, factory work and commercial work. He also did some demolition work before starting renovations.

  2. Between 1970 and 1972 the plaintiff worked with Mr Joe Protich in partnership. They worked extensively for one builder Mr Dick Jones in the Padstow area building a lot of fibro cottages.

  3. The plaintiff and Mr Protich changed the structure of their business from a partnership to a company. The original name was Foxden Pty Limited, which later changed to Foxden Constructions Pty Limited. From 1972 onwards they did work for Mirvac on new houses and apartment projects. The work performed was carpentry including skirtings, architraves, doors, walls and ceiling linings as required. Mr Zanetic did that work until he retired in 2003.

  4. Mr Zanetic gave evidence by an affidavit sworn on 20 June 2017. The Tribunal sat at the palliative care ward of Greenwich Hospital on 21 June 2017 to take the plaintiff’s evidence.

  5. From 1962 onwards the plaintiff worked with a lot of fibro asbestos cement building products. He nominated working with Hardiflex, Hardies compressed sheets, Hardiplank, Hardies Log Cabin, Tilux, Super Six corrugated sheets and Villaboard. He said that he had exposure from 1962 onwards, including from 1972 with Mirvac, right up until asbestos was taken out of building products.

  6. His heaviest exposure to asbestos dust occurred when he was cutting compressed asbestos cement sheets. He identified all of the products he used from a James Hardie brochure which was annexed to his affidavit.

  7. The plaintiff was never warned…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zanetic v Amaca Pty Limited 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
[2017] NSWDDT 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zanetic v Amaca Pty Limited involves a dispute concerning the compensation for damages arising from exposure to hazardous dust. The plaintiff, Zanetic, sought damages for injuries sustained due to exposure to dust while working on construction sites. The defendant, Amaca Pty Limited, was found to have failed in its duty of care towards the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues in this case were whether Amaca Pty Limited had breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe working environment and whether the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of such a breach. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for the injuries suffered.

The court found that Amaca Pty Limited was indeed negligent in not providing a safe working environment, leading to the plaintiff's exposure to hazardous dust. The court held that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were a direct result of this negligence. Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of $455,007.54. Furthermore, the court ordered Amaca Pty Limited to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

The final orders of the court included a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $455,007.54 and an order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. These orders reflect the court's determination that Amaca Pty Limited was liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff due to its failure to provide a safe working environment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Judgment for the plaintiff for $455,007.54

2 Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs

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.