Australia: Asbestos Litigation – Two Product Liability Cases

Last Updated: 21 January 2008
Article by Con Gotis-Graham and Charles Gregory

The recent decisions of Amaca Pty Limited (under NSW administered winding up) v Moss [2007] WASCA 162 and Amaca Pty Limited (under NSW administered winding up) v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 show that breach of duty and causation are still difficult to prove in dust disease cases.


Mr Hannell was born in the UK on 23 October 1942. He emigrated to Western Australia in 1981. In October 2005 he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. The only exposure to asbestos that he could remember was when he worked with asbestos cement (AC) products at his home on a number of occasions between 1983 and 1990.

Mr Moss was born in the UK on 16 August 1927. He migrated to Perth in 1989. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2005. The only exposure to asbestos that he could remember was when he worked with AC products at his home on four separate occasions between 1989 and the early 1990's.

Both Mr Moss and Mr Hannell alleged that they had contracted mesothelioma as a result of the negligent exposure to asbestos dust and fibre.

On 4 April 2006, the Supreme Court of Western Australia ordered that both matters be heard together on the basis that the liability issues in each action were similar.

Trial Judge's Findings

Le Miere J held that Amaca owed a duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury being suffered by Mr Hannell and Mr Moss as home 'handymen'. He found that the labels placed on Amaca's AC products after 1979 were inadequate to discharge this duty.

Le Miere J found that in addition to using appropriate warning labels on their products, Amaca also had a duty to advertise in the mass media so as to communicate to persons in the same class as Mr Hannell and Mr Moss the risks associated with exposure to asbestos.

Le Miere J found that Mr Hannell's and Mr Moss' exposure contributed to the risk of them both contracting mesothelioma. Despite failing to describe the extent to which the risk had increased, Le Miere J found that both Mr Hannell's and Mr Moss' exposure materially contributed to them contracting mesothelioma.


Amaca appealed both decisions on the following grounds:

  • The trial judge had erred in concluding that a 'background' risk from exposure to asbestos dust and fibre did not apply to Mr Hannell and Mr Moss.
  • The trial judge had failed to correctly apply the law in relation to the determination of causation.
  • The risk of contracting mesothelioma for persons with exposure similar to Mr Hannell's and Mr Moss' was not foreseeable.
  • Any failure by Amaca to affix sufficient warning labels to their AC products or embark on an advertising campaign was not causative of Mr Hannell's and Mr Moss' contraction of mesothelioma.

Background risk from exposure to asbestos dust and fibre

'Background' exposure refers to exposure to asbestos from the general environment. Martin CJ found that the trial judge had erred in finding that both Mr Hannell and Mr Moss had had no exposure to respirable asbestos dust and fibre other than on the occasions identified in evidence.

Martin CJ ruled that cross-examination could never establish, as a fact, that a witness had had no other exposure other than that of which he or she could remember.

The background risk of the contraction of mesothelioma therefore applied to Mr Hannell and Mr Moss. As a result, they needed to prove that their specific exposure materially contributed to their contraction of mesothelioma above and beyond the risk associated with background exposure.

Principles for determining causation

The trial judge had approached the issue of causation on the basis that Mr Hannell and Mr Moss would discharge their burden of proof in establishing causation if they could prove that their exposure had increased the risk of contracting mesothelioma above what would be regarded as de minimus.

Martin CJ ruled that this was not the law in Australia. He referred at length to the judgment of Spigelman C J in Seltsam Pty Limited v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 264. Martin CJ found that the extent of the increase in risk occasioned by the specific exposures needed to be established before a finding of causation could be made.

He found that the evidence relied on by Mr Hannell and Mr Moss only demonstrated an increased risk of contracting mesothelioma. The evidence did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the exposure had materially contributed to the mesothelioma. The Court of Appeal was unanimous in finding that Mr Moss could not prove that his handyman exposure was causative of his mesothelioma.

In relation to Mr Hannell, Martin CJ held that asbestos exposure did not make a cumulative contribution to the contraction of mesothelioma. Rather, each exposure simply increased the risk of the contraction of mesothelioma due to the presence of a larger number of individual fibres in the lung.

This is contrary to the joint judgment of Steytler P and McLure JA who found that Mr Hannell's exposure was causative of his mesothelioma. The basis for their opinion was that the medical evidence established that each exposure made a cumulative contribution to the mesothelioma.

Risk of contracting mesothelioma was not foreseeable

Martin CJ found that the risk to persons in the same situation as Mr Hannell and Mr Moss, being handymen with direct and bystander exposure, was considered to be within the scope of an acceptable level of risk.

This is contrary to the joint judgment of Steytler P and McLure JA who concluded that Amaca knew or ought to have known that any exposure of a kind experienced by Mr Hannell and Mr Moss was capable of causing an injury such as mesothelioma.

Failure to affix warning labels, advertise and causation

Martin CJ found that warning labels affixed to Amaca's AC products would not have been visible to Mr Hannell at the time he was exposed to asbestos. Therefore, Amaca's breach of duty in failing to affix warning labels could not be held to have been causative of Mr Hannell's mesothelioma. He also found that Mr Hannell was unlikely to have read or heard about the risks of exposure to asbestos dust and fibre if Amaca had advertised these risks in the mass media. As such, a failure to do so was not causative of Mr Hannell's condition. Steytler P and McLure JA agreed that a breach of duty by Amaca with regards to warning labels would not have caused Mr Hannell's mesothelioma.

Steytler P and McLure JA also found that advertising in the mass media was not appropriate for the conveyance of the relevant information to persons such as Mr Hannell and Mr Moss.


The differences of opinion between Martin CJ and Steytler P and McClure JA in relation to foreseeability suggest that this area of the law is still malleable. The judgment of Martin CJ suggests that the medical evidence up until the early 1990's supported the suggestion that a minimal amount of exposure to asbestos did not increase the risk of contracting mesothelioma.

The most significant difference between the judgments lies in their treatment of causation. Martin CJ ruled that both Mr Hannell and Mr Moss had failed to prove that their increased risk of contracting mesothelioma was, on the balance of probabilities, causative of the mesothelioma above and beyond that of their background exposure.

In making such a finding, Martin CJ made a detailed analysis of the relevance of the expert evidence. He found that despite assertions by some of the experts that Mr Hannell's risk of contracting mesothelioma had been increased, no evidence was provided to suggest that the increased risk was causative of his mesothelioma.

Steytler P and McClure JA did not follow Spigelman CJ's judgment in Seltsam Pty Limited v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 264 in finding that any exposure which is not de minimis makes a material contribution. The discrepancies between the judgments suggest that there is still room for argument in relation to causation involving exposure to asbestos dust and fibre and other toxic substances.

Application For Special Leave To The High Court

Both Mr Moss and Mr Hannell sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. The applications were refused on 24 October 2007 by Gleeson CJ and Heydon and Kiefel JJ who noted that there was an insufficient likelihood of the appeals being successful.

In relation to Mr Moss, Gleeson CJ referred to the Court of Appeal's decision on causation as being highly fact specific, and that the case did not raise an issue suitable for special leave to appeal to be granted.

Mr Hannell sought to reopen the question of whether, in circumstances where death is an accepted probability, Amaca should inform the public in carrying out its duty as a reasonable manufacturer. Mr Hannell proposed that in circumstances where death was known to result, a court must find that a breach of duty had occurred in cases where Amaca did nothing.

Amaca submitted that Mr Hannell would fail to overturn the Court of Appeal's decision as the risk of injury was so low so as to make an advertising campaign unnecessary. Its second submission was to reiterate the fact that such an advertising campaign, if it proceeded, would not have come to the attention of either of the plaintiffs.

In making his decision to refuse leave to Mr Hannell, Gleeson CJ noted that the Court of Appeal had applied the correct law to the facts of the case in finding that Amaca did not breach its duty of care to Mr Hannell by failing to advertise in the mass media. He noted that the case did not raise a novel principle of law and found that both cases were fact specific and did not necessarily stand for binding legal authority.

Trial Judgment:

Moss -v- Amaca Pty Limited (Formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) [2006] WASC 311 (

Hannell -v- Amaca Pty Limited (Formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) [2006] WASC 310 (

Court of Appeal Judgment:

Amaca Pty Limited (formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) -v- Moss [2007] WASCA 162 (

Amaca Pty Limited (formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) -v- Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 (

Special Leave Application (Transcript):

Moss and Hannell v Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) [2007] HCATrans 626 (

Phillips Fox has changed its name to DLA Phillips Fox because the firm entered into an exclusive alliance with DLA Piper, one of the largest legal services organisations in the world. We will retain our offices in every major commercial centre in Australia and New Zealand, with no operational change to your relationship with the firm. DLA Phillips Fox can now take your business one step further − by connecting you to a global network of legal experience, talent and knowledge.

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 and no liability will be accepted for any losses incurred by those relying solely on this publication.

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.