Australia: Asbestos Litigation Update

Last Updated: 9 July 2009
Article by Barbara De Brouwer, Sara Mirabella and Michael Proud

Some recent decisions involving asbestos litigation considered whether an issue determined in earlier proceedings could be relitigated, the meaning of 'dependent' in section 15B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), whether an insurer's liability was greater than the specified statutory amount, and whether indemnity costs were payable by a party which had refused to settle at an earlier time.

Apostolopoulos v Hatzisarantinos and Ors trading as Omonia Constructions (No. 3) [2009] NSWDDT 6

An application was made by the first defendant, Omonia, under section 25B(1) of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW) (the Act) to relitigate an issue of a general nature that had been determined in an earlier proceeding. The issue concerned whether Progressive Massive Fibrosis (PMF) was an indivisible injury.

Section 25B(2) of the Act outlines the factors that the Tribunal is to consider when deciding whether to grant leave under section 25B(1). They are:

  • The availability of new evidence (whether or not previously available).
  • The manner in which the other proceedings referred to in that subsection were conducted.
  • Such other matters as the Tribunal considers to be relevant.

On section 25B(2)(a), Judge O'Meally was of the opinion that 'new evidence' meant evidence not given previously. Evidence contained in various reports obtained by Omonia's solicitors, which discussed the nature of PMF, were held to constitute 'new evidence'.

When considering the conduct of the earlier proceedings, Judge O'Meally was not persuaded that the manner in which that trial was conducted before Judge Johns warranted leave to be granted. He felt that the issue of PMF was fairly raised in evidence, examined by counsel and considered at first instance and on appeal.

The grounds on which Judge O'Meally refused to grant leave under section 25B(2)(c) of the Act included:

  • The delay of more than three years after the filing of the plaintiff's section 25B notice.
  • The rejection of offers of settlement.
  • The lack of any indication prior to the departure of the Tribunal and lawyers for overseas for the purposes of examining the plaintiff.
  • The fact that the case would have been conducted in a different manner had the application been made earlier.

Amaca Pty Ltd v Novek [2009] NSWCA 50

This case considered the meaning of 'dependent' in section 15B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA). In particular, whether a relationship of dependency existed between grandparent and grandchildren in a situation where the children's parents were alive and not estranged from the children.

Before becoming ill with mesothelioma, Mrs Margaret Dawson lived with her daughter, her daughter's husband and their two young children.

The daughter and husband were able to work full time while Mrs Dawson cared for the children. The first instance finding that the grandchildren were dependents of Mrs Dawson was appealed by the defendants on the basis that the trial judge erred in construing section 15B of the CLA. They argued that:

  • The grandchildren were not dependents of Mrs Dawson.
  • Mrs Dawson's services were not provided to the grandchildren, but to their parents.
  • The provision of services was not reasonable.

On appeal Justice Campbell (with whom the other judges agreed) held that no errors of law had been made. Justice Campbell held that:

  • The period of time over which Mrs Dawson provided care to the children, the frequency with which it was provided, and the extensive nature of the care she provided, made it open to the judge to conclude that the children were dependent on Mrs Dawson.
  • Mrs Dawson provided services to the grandchildren by looking after them.
  • It was open to the judge to conclude that the provision of services was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This case is significant because it broadens the definition of 'dependent' in section 15B of the CLA to include a grandmother providing care for her grandchildren where the children's parents are alive and not estranged from the children.

QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Stewart [2009] NSWCA 66

Angus Stewart worked for Pilkington Bros (Australia) Ltd (Pilkington) from 1964 to 1967. For most of his employment he operated a multi-stage dye bending machine during which time he wore asbestos gloves for heat protection. When using the gloves, the gloves gave off dust in various circumstances. Many years later Mr Stewart was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died from this condition on 22 October 2007. Prior to his death he commenced proceedings in the Dust Diseases Tribunal against QBE (Pilkington's workers' compensation insurer) and Wallaby Grip Ltd (Wallaby Grip) (the supplier to Pilkington of the asbestos gloves). Following his death, the proceedings were continued by his widow and legal personal representative, Irene Stewart.

On 18 March 2008, Judge Kearns delivered a verdict against QBE and Wallaby Grip for AU$356,510 in favour of Ms Stewart. QBE appealed this decision on two grounds:

  • The finding that Pilkington was negligent (the employer's liability issue).
  • The finding that QBE was liable for more than $40,000 which, at the relevant time, was the statutory minimum for which every employer was required to obtain a policy for its liability for any injury to its workers (the insurance issue).

The appeal was heard before Justices Ipp, Gyles, and Brereton.

On the employer's liability issue, the decision was unanimous that 'there was (just) sufficient evidence to entitle the primary judge to conclude that Pilkington failed to warn Mr Stewart of the risks attendant on use of asbestos gloves... and that if given a warning Mr Stewart would have acted on it'. Accordingly, on this issue, the appeal failed.

On the insurance issue, QBE's appeal was allowed. Justices Ipp and Gyles held that Judge Kearns erred in holding that QBE's liability to indemnify Pilkington was unlimited and, in particular, not limited to $40,000. 'The only evidence that bore upon the amount of cover under the policy was that which gave rise to the inference that the cover was at least $40,000': per Justice Ipp.

Justices Ipp and Gyles also found that Judge Kearns erred in holding that an onus lay on QBE to produce evidence that demonstrated the limit, if there was one. 'The fact that QBE could not produce the policy does not transform the onus of proof that otherwise arises': per Justice Ipp.

However, Justice Brereton disagreed. He was of the view that the party relying on an express exclusion of limitation of liability bore the onus of showing that it was a term of the contract.

This decision reinforces the long standing legal principle that the onus of proof lies with the party who makes the allegation. The terms of the relevant insurance policy and in particular, the maximum sum insured, were elements of Ms Stewart's case. The onus of proving these elements rested with her.

QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v CSR Ltd [2009] NSWDDT 7

Francis Gibson contracted asbestosis as a result of his employment with Austin Richards Pty Ltd between 1962 and 1970. On 30 November 2006, Mr Gibson issued proceedings for damages against QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (QBE), the insurer of Austin Richards, and Amaca Pty Ltd (Amaca), the supplier of asbestos products. Amaca cross-claimed against CSR Ltd (CSR), another supplier of asbestos products.

Mr Gibson's claim was subject to the Claims Resolution Process established by Part 4 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulations 2007. On 13 February 2008, an appointed Contributions Assessor determined contribution as follows: QBE – 15%; Amaca – 63.75%; and CSR – 21.25%. Amaca was appointed as Single Claims Manager (SCM) to manage, negotiate and seek to resolve the (Mr Gibson's) claim on behalf of all defendants.

On 27 March 2008, a mediation was held. Mr Gibson offered to settle his claim for $240,000 inclusive of costs. QBE, Amaca and CSR offered $80,000 inclusive of costs because CSR would not agree to any settlement that exceeded this amount.

On 7 April 2008, Mr Gibson offered to settle his claim for $150,000 inclusive of costs on a provisional basis. Although QBE and Amaca considered this offer reasonable and were keen to accept it, CSR refused to authorize the SCM to settle with Mr Gibson for that amount.

By July 2008, there were a number of reports available to the parties. Dr David McEvoy, respiratory physician, was of the opinion that the future cost of Mr Gibson's care would be $80,000 to $120,000. Dr Roger Allen, physician, estimated these costs to be $80,000 to $100,000 whereas Mr Hoey, occupational therapist, estimated them to be $90,000. When the latter report was to hand, QBE's solicitors wrote to CSR's solicitors enquiring whether their client would alter its position. CSR's response was that it would not but that QBE and Amaca were free to settle with Mr Gibson in the sum of $150,000.

The claim eventually settled on 4 September 2008 for $165,000 inclusive of costs on a provisional basis. QBE agreed to pay $22,500, ie 15% of $150,000 in accordance with the Contributions Assessment, and Amaca agreed to pay the balance of $142,500.

On 16 February 2009, CSR agreed to pay $31,875 inclusive of costs and interest in settlement of the cross-claim by Amaca. This settlement was on a full and final basis. This amount was the same sum that CSR had refused to contribute to Mr Gibson's initial offer of $150,000 in April 2008.

QBE sought orders that CSR pay its costs, either on a party/party basis or indemnity basis, from 27 March 2008 (the date of the mediation) or, in the alternative, from 7 April 2008 when Mr Gibson offered to accept $150,000 inclusive of costs in settlement of his claim on a provisional basis. QBE contended that it would not have incurred these costs if CSR had acted reasonably during the Claims Resolution Process.

During the hearing, CSR conceded that, as at April 2008, $150,000 inclusive of costs was a reasonable settlement of Mr Gibson's claim for provisional damages.

Judge Curtis concluded that CSR had acted unreasonably when it imposed a monetary limit of $80,000 on Amaca when it was appointed SCM. Its conduct was incompatible with the objectives of the Claims Resolution Process. As CSR was on notice of its peril if it persisted with its unreasonable attitude, Judge Curtis held that '[t]his [was] an appropriate matter in which costs should be paid on an indemnity basis'.

© DLA Phillips Fox

DLA Phillips Fox is one of the largest legal firms in Australasia and a member of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of independent legal practices. It is a separate and distinct legal entity. For more information visit

This publication is intended as a first point of reference and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions