Australia: Amaca Pty Limited (formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Limited) v Hannell [2007] WASCA158 and Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) v Moss [2007] WASCA 162

Last Updated: 20 August 2007
Article by Andrew Spearritt

2 August 2007
Martin CJ, Steytler P and McLure JA

In Brief

The Court of Appeal in Western Australia considered the liability of suppliers of products containing asbestos to a handyman (in the case of Hannell) and a bystander (in the case of Moss). Both cases were heard together at Trial and on appeal. Both cases involved short term specific exposures to asbestos fibres. The Trial Judge, in both cases found in favour of the Plainitiffs. Amaca, the product supplier was held to owe a duty of care to both plaintiffs who contracted mesothelioma from exposure to Amaca products. The Court of Appeal ultimately held that the evidence did not support a breach of duty and upheld Amaca’s appeals in both cases.


Mr Hannell (Hannell) was born in the UK in October 1942 and worked as a gardener and then as a horticulturist. In 1981 he emigrated to Western Australia with his family and purchased a house which contained asbestos cement products installed in the late 1970's. Hannell had three incidents of exposure to asbestos fibres as follows:

  1. In early 1983 he removed a Hardiplank fence in his backyard using a hammer or screw driver; some planks broke; he stacked and later reassembled the planks, cutting and drilling some; he then brushed and painted the planks. The process took a couple of weekends and a couple of nights.
  2. In early 1985 Hannell brushed, sanded, washed and painted the eaves of his house. This work was above his head; the preparation took about one week.
  3. In about February 1990 Hannell brushed fences and ridge cappings to remove bird droppings and algae in preparation for painting. The task took a couple of days.
Decision of the Trial Judge

At trial Le Miere J found that by at least 1983, the risk to persons carrying out work (non occupational exposure) on asbestos cement products for limited times and very occasionally, was sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty upon Amaca to warn such persons against carrying out work which could expose the worker to respirable fibres. His Honour found that this required the affixation of warnings to its products and the placement of regular advertisements in newspapers. He further found that Amaca's breach of that duty caused Hannell to contract mesothelioma.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Chief Justice Martin CJ upheld the appeal and in a joint judgment Steytler P and McLure JA also upheld the appeal but for different reasons.

Martin CJ

  • Due to the very limited exposure to respirable asbestos fibre occasioned by the work carried out by Hannell his Honour found that the evidence failed to establish that:
  1. such exposure caused this mesothelioma;
  2. the risk of contracting mesothelioma from limited and occasional exposure as a result of work of the kind undertaken was sufficiently foreseeable at the time the asbestos cement products were manufactured to impose a duty upon Amaca to place warning labels upon them;
  3. by the time of Hannell's exposures, it was sufficiently foreseeable to require Amaca to embark upon an advertising campaign directed at those who might undertake work of this kind; and
  4. if Amaca had affixed warning labels to its asbestos cement products, or embarked upon an advertising campaign of that kind, Hannell would not have been exposed to respirable asbestos fibre on the three occasions he has identified.
  • Martin CJ held that the Trial Judge was wrong to find as a fact that Hannell had not experienced any specific exposures to respirable asbestos fibre of which he was unaware or could not now recall and his Honour was therefore wrong to use that as a basis for rejecting all of Amaca's expert evidence. That rejection of the evidence required the Court of Appeal to undertake its own evaluation of all the evidence given in the case.
  • Martin CJ found that the Trial Judge approached the question of causation on the basis that Hannell would discharge its burden of proof if he established on the balance of probabilities that the three incidents of specific exposure already identified had increased the risk of him contracting mesothelioma to any extent above that which will be regarded as falling within the de minimis principle (emphasis added). His Honour found that that may be the law of England, but it is not the law of Australia. His Honour expressly rejected the English approach and endorsed the approach on causation adopted by Spigelman CJ in Seltsam Pty Limited v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262.
  • Martin CJ found that the Trial Judge erred in law by not making any finding on an issue which was critical to the question of causation, namely, the extent to which those specific exposures (three incidents referred to above) increased Hannell’s risk of contracting mesothelioma over and above the background risk.
  • Martin CJ also found that a further error of law made by the Trial Judge was the view which he took in relation to the nature of the evidential burden imposed upon a Defendant once the Plaintiff has established that a breach of duty has occurred followed by injury within the area of the foreseeable risk. In his Honour's view the approach taken by the Trial Judge had the effect of imposing upon Amaca not only the burden of adducing evidence to the effect that the Plaintiff would have contracted mesothelioma irrespective of the specific exposures he had identified, but also approving that proposition on the balance of probabilities. This conclusion required Martin CJ to conduct his own analysis and investigation of the expert scientific, medical and epidemiological evidence which had been adduced in the trial below.
  • Martin CJ held that contrary to the findings of the Trial Judge none of the evidence he referred to supported a conclusion that Amaca was aware or believed, during the relevant period, that occasional exposure to low levels of asbestos fibre posed a significant or unacceptable level of risk to health. In his Honour's opinion,having regard to the evidence, the finding of the Trial Judge that it was reasonably foreseeable to a person in Amaca's position that an occasional and casual user of asbestos cement building products would suffer mesothelioma, or other lung disease as a result of undertaking casual work on those products, could not be sustained.
  • Finally, Martin CJ held that Amaca did not owe a duty to warn those who like Hannell, might undertake occasional work on asbestos cement products which comprise mainly chrysotile cement. The perception of the level or risk created by such work is not of such a magnitude to impose a duty to warn, let alone a duty to embark upon an advertising program which would have been sufficiently extensive to come to Hannell’s attention. Accordingly his Honour allowed Amaca's appeal and set aside the judgment in favour of Hannell.

Steytler P and McLure JA

Steytler P and McLure JA agreed with the Chief Justice that the appeal should be allowed but for different reasons. They held:


Their Honours agreed with the Chief Justice that the Trial Judge had failed to provide sufficient or adequate reasons as to why he preferred the Plaintiff's evidence to that of Amaca. They observed that in circumstances where the Appellant was the manufacturer of the product, the risk of members of the relevant class contracting the life threatening disease was real, not far-fetched or fanciful, even though the risk of it occurring was extremely low. They held that although the Trial Judge erred in failing to give reason to consideration to the determination of foreseeability issues, he came to the correct result in which event they dismissed the Appellant's grounds of appeal challenging the finding of foreseeability.

Duty of Care

Their Honours found that the Trial Judge was correct in his formulation of the scope of the duty of care and they dismissed the Appellants challenge to the Trial Judge's formulation of the duty of care.

Breach of Duty

Their Honours indicated that they were concerned with an extremely low risk of very significant harm, being death from mesothelioma. They found that the warning suggested by the Trial Judge was a communication to the effect that the product is of such a danger as to suggest it should not be permitted to remain in situ and certainly ought not to be worked on at all. They held that a warning of that nature was not justified by the evidence. By implication they held that there was no breach of duty and they upheld the appeal on that basis.


Their Honours rejected the one fibre theory of causation. They agreed with the Appellant's submission that "none of the medical and scientific evidence supported the theory." Their Honours agreed with the Chief Justice that the Trial Judge erred in rejecting the evidence of Mr Rogers, Dr Francis and Professors Berry and Breslin but they did not accept the Appellant's contention that epidemiological evidence was the only basis for establishing that these specific exposures caused or materially contributed to the Plaintiff's mesothelioma.

Their Honours analysed the issue of causation in the context of the expert evidence. They held that on the evidence the background exposure and the specific exposures were each independent sufficient causes of mesothelioma but highlighted that one question which was not directly addressed by the parties or the Trial Judge is whether they are alternative causes (that is, it must be one or the other but cannot be both) or cumulative causes.

Their Honours examined the test of causation applied in Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176CLR408 but decided that the Trial Judge went further than permitted by the Bennett test by placing an onus on the Appellant to exclude any possibility that asbestos fibres from the specific exposures caused or contributed to the disease. Accordingly their Honours allowed the appeal by Amaca.


  • The Chief Judge has distinguished the UK approach which found that in effect a material increase in the risk of contracting mesothelioma equated to a material contribution or cause of mesothelioma. He endorsed the Australian view as expressed in Seltsam v McGuiness to the effect that a Plaintiff must prove that exposure to asbestos has caused or materially contributed to his contraction of mesothelioma. A mere increase in the risk of contracting the disease is not sufficient to satisfy the Australian test on this issue.
  • The application of the "one fibre theory" has been seriously challenged in obiter dicta in this decision.
  • The decision can be contrasted with the NSW Court of Appeal decision in Seltsam Pty Limited v McNeil [2006] NSW CA 158 which held there was no duty owed in the particular facts of that case which involved non occupational and very low exposures.
  • The decision may have significant implications for future Plaintiffs with non occupational handyman or bystander exposure (with low doses of exposure) who may now be denied compensation.
  • It may be left to other Courts to reconcile the apparent tension between expert evidence which agrees that there is no known safe level of exposure below which there was no risk of mesothelioma and the finding that a Defendant is not liable for low levels of asbestos exposure.
  • Given the potential significance of the decision it may be the subject of a special leave application to the High Court of Australia.

Amaca v Moss

The Court of Appeal approached the Moss case in the same way. It was alleged Mr Moss contracted mesothelioma from some four occasions in 1989 and 1990 when he had limited non – occupational exposure to asbestos as a result of work undertaken by himself on asbestos products and on one occasion as a result of observing work on asbestos products undertaken by another.

The trial judge distinguished between the bystander and handyman exposures holding Amaca had no duty to Moss in the bystander situation. The Court of Appeal rejected this approach holding the duty owed should be the same in both the bystander and handyman situations.

The trial judges verdict in favour of Moss was rejected by the Court of Appeal for the reasons advanced by the Court of Appeal in Hannell.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific 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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.