Australia: Medical testing in litigation: explanted tissue – James v Seltsam Pty Ltd

Last Updated: 26 February 2018
Article by Justine Anderson

In litigation seeking compensation for asbestos exposure, an interlocutory application was brought by the first defendant, Seltsam Pty Ltd, seeking testing of the plaintiff's explanted lung. The application required the court to consider whether the explanted lung could be classed as property and as such whether an order could be made to have the explanted lung subjected to specialised testing irrespective of the plaintiff's lack of consent.


The plaintiff, Mr David James, alleged that whilst working at the Wunderlich factory in Sunshine (Victoria) between approximately 1966 and 1967, and 1970 and 1972, he had been negligently exposed to asbestos dust and fibre by reason of the defendants' conduct, which resulted in the plaintiff suffering from asbestosis.1 Experts were engaged by both parties to determine the root cause of the plaintiff's asbestosis. However, both experts had differing opinions of the causative factor.

Report of Dr Andrew Musk, respiratory physician, dated 15 April 2017 and 21 June 2017 (instructed by the plaintiff)

Dr Musk noted the absence of asbestos bodies in a biopsy of the lung. However he suggested further tissue be submitted for "(uncoated) fibre counting".2

Dr Musk stated that he did not accept that the presence of asbestos bodies on lung pathologies was required for a clinical diagnosis of asbestosis, as not all asbestos fibres are converted to asbestos bodies.3 In his opinion, it meant there were other clinical, morphological and pathological signs that suggest it was likely that the plaintiff had asbestosis. Dr Musk stated:

... factors favouring a diagnosis of asbestosis in this case are the history of exposure and the presence of interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and I suggest it is illogical to maintain that the fibrosis is of unknown cause (ie idiopathic). 4

Report of Dr Andrew Gal, pathologist, dated 10 May 2017 (instructed by Seltsam)
Dr Gal came to a different opinion. His differential diagnosis was that the plaintiff had "usual interstitial pneumonia" (UIP) based on the absence of asbestos bodies in the analysed lung tissue.5

The application by Seltsam
The application made by Seltsam therefore relied on the plaintiff's expert medical reports of Dr Musk, which suggested further testing be performed, specifically requesting the explanted lung be submitted for (uncoated) fibre counting. Previously the parties believed there was not a facility in Australia that could conduct the test. Seltsam however found a laboratory in Western Australia that was able to conduct the fibre count. On multiple occasions Seltsam requested the lung tissue to be provided to the laboratory for testing.6

Subsequently, the plaintiff's solicitors sought information from Seltsam regarding the identity and credentials of the pathologist conducting the count and details regarding the technique to be used. The plaintiff's solicitors sought an assurance that the laboratory would remain independent and impartial, considering the method of this test would inevitably destroy the only specimen available to both parties, which is crucial to these proceedings.7 Seltsam's solicitors informed the plaintiff that Microanalysis Australia's testing protocols would meet the required criteria.8

The sample was still not sent to the laboratory.9

The interlocutory application

By summons (interlocutory application) Seltsam sought orders that:10

  • the lung tissue be submitted for an asbestos fibre count to be performed by Microanalysis Australia
  • the trial listed to commence on 23 August 2017 be vacated and the proceeding be fixed for trial not before 22 November 2017
  • the plaintiff pay Seltsam's costs

Seltsam's submissions

Counsel for Seltsam applied for discovery of the plaintiff's explanted lung tissue on the basis of s 55 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (CPA) which provides a broad power, not confined to documents.11 Counsel submitted that the court has power to make any order in relation to discovery that it considers necessary or appropriate, including by expanding a party's obligation to provide discovery.12 Counsel also asked the court to make the order pursuant to s 55 of the CPA, taking into consideration that:13

  • it is in the interests of justice and it is required for the just determination of the proceedings
  • Dr Musk recommended the testing be done
  • no asbestos bodies were found by any expert on the samples analysed
  • the test would narrow the issues in dispute
  • the plaintiff would not be subject to prejudice if the testing was performed
  • if the test was not performed, Seltsam's defence would be adversely unfavourably prejudiced
  • interpretation of the test results was to be reserved as a matter for the trial

Counsel also relied on s 9(2) of the CPA, which relates to the parties' attempt to limit the issue dispute. In the circumstances of this case Seltsam argued that:14

  • the plaintiff no longer had any use for the removed lung
  • the test available is non-invasive to the plaintiff
  • if Seltsam was denied access to the lung, it would amount to a denial of justice
  • access to the lung was a reasonable endeavour to resolve the dispute for the just resolution of the proceedings

Counsel for Seltsam also argued that, if the court was not minded to make an order pursuant to s 55 of the CPA, the court could make the order pursuant to r 34.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (Rules).15 In the alternative, counsel for Seltsam submitted that the court could make such an order on the basis of the subpoena powers under r 40.12(1) of the Rules. 16

Plaintiff's submissions

The plaintiff's counsel submitted that, in circum- stances where the court had not been told what the test was for, where it goes to, the consequences if the fibre count is low or high and who was going to undertake the test,17 then the court would be unable to determine the benefit of the test in resolving the issues in dispute.18 It was argued that, unless the court could be informed of the medical expert providing the opinion, the results themselves would be of no forensic or evidentiary relevance to the court.19 Counsel also submitted that the power that Seltsam argued was required for the production of the explanted lung for testing was not a discovery power.20

The plaintiff submitted that, because both experts were of the opinion on the basis of the plaintiff's exposure history, this indicated that a possible cause existed from signs of exposure on the lungs and that there was no need to look any further for a definitive answer.21 In this respect counsel for the plaintiff argued there was no obvious forensic purpose given for undertaking the test and denied it was going to advance the interest of justice of the case or make it easier for the court to rule on diagnosis.22

Section 55 of the CPA

Zammit J asked two questions: firstly, whether there can be discovery of something which is not a document; secondly, whether there should be discovery where the thing discovered will be destroyed as a result.23

In answer to the first question, her Honour found that s 55 does not apply to chattels. Her Honour applied the principle of ejusdem generis and stated that s 55 must take its character from the specific examples given and must be taken to be concerned with documents.24 Her Honour highlighted that counsel was unable to point to recent examples of non-documentary discovery.25 With the presence of r 37.01 of the Rules, and the extent that there is power for "discovery" of chattels, her Honour noted that there has been no call for the use of that power since the middle of the 19th century.26 Her Honour stated that it is more likely that the power in s 55 of the CPA was intended to refer to the power to discover documents, which is consistent with the specific powers provided in that section.27

Zammit J also mentioned r 40.12 of the Rules. Whilst discussing s 55 of the CPA, her Honour stated that whilst r 40.12(1)(c) appears wider than the documentary dis- covery permitted under s 55, it does not afford the court any wider power than it would otherwise enjoy. Thus, another source of any such power had to be found. The rule was found not to extend the power available under s 55.28

Rule 37.01

It was held that this rule provided the court with the power to make the order sought by Seltsam.29 However, the question that remained to be answered was whether the explanted lung was "property" for the purposes of r 37.01 and the court held it was. 30

Zammit J examined the case law on the issue of whether body parts can be classified as property, and noted as follows:

  • Doodeward v Spence31 (Doodeward) was a case about detinue — whereby the body of a child with two heads was capable of being considered as property due to in part, the work and skill involved in preserving the specimen.32Griffith CJ held that:
  • ... the fact that a particular thing was not capable of being the subject of a charge of larceny did not mean that it was incapable of being the subject of an action in detinue.33

  • Roche v Douglas34 (Roche) was a case concerning DNA analysis of a tissues sample removed from the body of a deceased person to determine paternity relating to a claim under the deceased's will.35 Sanderson M held that it was proper to hold that the human tissue is property.36
  • Pecar v National Australia Trustees Ltd37 — in this case Bryson J held in relation to an equivalent rule to r 37.01 in NSW that permitted testing of tissue, that such tissue could be considered property "whether or not there were rights of owner- ship vesting in a particular person."38 Tissue may be property "whether or not it was possible to definitively identify who held the relevant rights."39
  • S v Minister for Health (WA)40 where Simmonds J upheld the decision of Roche and added that one "should not distinguish between the taking of samples of tissue taken from a body before death and the taking of a sample of tissue from a body after death."41
  • Re Section 22 of the Human Tissue and Transplant Act 1982 (WA); Ex parte C,42 in this case, then Edelman J stated that:
  • The principle that a human body cannot be the object of a property right does not apply in relation to tissue or body parts once they are removed from a human body. It is now clear that things which are removed and separated from the living human body, such as human tissue, can sometimes be the object of property rights.43

Having reviewed these authorities, Zammit J con- cluded that the explanted lung tissue is property for the purposes of r 37.01. Her Honour highlighted that the principle stated in Doodeward is important as it indicates that whether or not something is property may vary between different legal settings. In this case, the explanted lung was held to be property.44

Who holds the rights in that property?

Zammit J dismissed this question as it was not required by r 37.01 for her to examine that point. However, in Roche, it was held that there was no need to determine who held the property rights.45 Zammit J took the same view, stating that it was sufficient in this case to direct an order to the laboratory that holds the explanted lung, regardless of whether they did or did not hold the rights to the property.46

Second question regarding the destruction of the explanted lung

It was held that on balance, the lung should be subject to testing as the potential probative value of the test results — subject to their interpretation — was held to be likely to determine a central question in the case, which could see the case disposed of in its entirety.47 Zammit J examined r 34.01 of the Rules and s 47 of the CPA, and held that both pieces of legislation have the overarching purpose of "just, efficient, timely and cost- effective resolution of the real issues in dispute".48 Her Honour sought to allow the explanted lung to be examined with those principles in mind, noting at [76], that there is no evidence of any prejudice to the plaintiff in the lung being destroyed and that the heavy weight in favour of the order being granted is not counteracted by any known prejudice to the plaintiff.


The court held that the explanted lung was considered property and made an order for the explanted lung to be provided to Seltsam's solicitors or the laboratory to undergo analysis pursuant to r 37.01. It adds a further case precedent on the consideration of whether body parts are considered as property for various legal claims.


1 James v Seltsam Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 506; BC201707544 at [1].
2Above, at [11].
3 Above n 1, at [10](a).
4 Above n 1, at [10](g).
5 Above n 1, at [8].
6 Above n 1, at [19].
7 Above n 1, at [20].
8 Above n 1, at [21].
9 Above n 1, at [22].
10 Above n 1, at [2].
11 Above n 1, at [27].
12 Above n 1, at [28].
13 Above n 1, at [34].
14 Above n 1, at [31].
15 Above n 1, at [32].
16 Above n 1, at [33].
17 In Stace v Commonwealth (1989) 51 SASR 391 similarly at 400, Bollen J found that the fullest information concerning the proposed test should be put before the court.
18 Above n 1, at [36].
19Above n 1, at [38].
20 Above n 1, at [37].
21 Above n 1, at [42].
22 Above n 1, at [43].
23 Above n 1, at [49].
24 Above n 1, at [51].
25 Above n 1, at [52].
26 Above n 1, at [57].
27 Above n 1, at [58].
28 Above n 1, at [60].
29 Above n 1, at [62].
30 Above n 1, at [62].
31 Doodeward v Spence (1908) 6 CLR 406; 15 ALR 105; [1908] HCA 45; BC0800017.
32 Above n 1, at [64].
33Above n 1, at [71].
34 Roche v Douglas (2000) 22 WAR 331; [2000] WASC 146; BC200003046.
35 Above n 1, at [63].
36Above n 1, at [66].
37 Pecar v National Australia Trustees Ltd (NSWSC, Bryson J, 27 November 1996, unreported, BC9605678).
38 Above n 1, at [67].
39 Above n 1, at [73].
40 S v Minister for Health (WA) [2008] WASC 262; BC200810112. 41Above n 1, at [68].
42 Re Section 22 of the Human Tissue and Transplant Act 1982 (WA); Ex parte C [2013] WASC 3; BC201300013.
43 Above n 1, at [69].
44 Above n 1, at [71].
45 Above n 1, at [72].
46 Above n 1, at [74].
47 Above n 1, at [82].
48Above n 1, at [80].

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”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
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