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”

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.