Puttick v Tenon Limited (formerly called Fletcher Challenge Forests Limited) [2008] HCA 54
- High Court explains which court can hear the plaintiff's claim.
Readers may recall Mrs Puttick's plight (see Product Risk Review 2006). Mr Puttick had been employed in New Zealand by a New Zealand-based company. His duties included the inspection of factories in Malaysia and Belgium and in the course of his employment he was exposed to asbestos and was subsequently diagnosed with mesothelioma in Victoria.
He had commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria but had subsequently died, leaving his widow to continue the proceedings. Mrs Puttick submitted that the place of the wrong was Victoria because the cause of action was not completed until damage was suffered – which was Victoria – and any acts in New Zealand, namely the direction to inspect the factories, was without legal consequences until there was exposure to asbestos and subsequent injury.
She had failed to convince the Supreme Court of Victoria - both at first instance and upon appeal - that it should hear her compensation claim arising out of the death of her husband. Her action had been stayed on the basis that it had been brought in a clearly inappropriate forum.
The High Court allowed her appeal. It thought that the Court of Appeal (and the primary judge) had made a mistake when they thought that they had sufficient information to was sufficient to decide what law (or laws) governed the rights and duties of the parties. Rather, the High Court thought that the correct decision was it was only arguable that the law of New Zealand was the law that governed the determination of those rights and duties.
Further, the High Court was of the view that the respondent did not establish that Victoria is a clearly inappropriate forum.
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.
