Australia: Asbestos Litigation – Jurisdiction Of The Dust Diseases Tribunal Of New South Wales Extended To Include "Smoke"

Curwoods Case Note - East West Airlines Limited v Turner [2010] NSWCA 53
Last Updated: 8 April 2010
Article by Andrew Spearritt and Helen Woods

Judgment date: 1 April 2010, East West Airlines Limited v Turner [2010] NSWCA 53, New South Wales Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the trial judge erred in finding that the Dust Diseases Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a claim relating to smoke.
  • A crucial consideration was the meaning to be attributed to the terms "dust" and "dust-related condition" as they appear in the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989.
  • The Court of Appeal held that unless a plaintiff was exposed to "dust" so as to develop a "dust-related condition", the Dust Diseases Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The word "dust" in this context however should be given its ordinary meaning and extends to include particulate matter contained in smoke.


On 4 March 1992 the plaintiff, Joanne Turner, was employed by East West as a flight attendant. On that date she was on a flight between Sydney and Brisbane on a BAE 146 aircraft operated by East West. Although the plaintiff was not on active duty on that flight, she was in the course of her employment.

As the aircraft was descending into Brisbane, for a period of about 20 minutes, smoke was emitted into the cabin. The immediate effect of that smoke upon the plaintiff included coughing, a burning throat, sore eyes and a headache. Thereafter the plaintiff suffered from a persistent cough and on 23 November 2001 she commenced proceedings in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales (Tribunal) seeking damages for her injury.

Interlocutory Proceedings

The plaintiff initially commenced proceedings against Ansett Australia Limited (Ansett). It was later discovered by the solicitors for Ansett however, that the plaintiff had not been employed by Ansett, but was employed by East West at the time of the alleged incident. Accordingly, on 1 December 2006, the plaintiff applied, by way of Notice of Motion, to "join" East West to the proceedings as if East West was a party from the date of filing of the original statement of claim.

In allowing the plaintiff's application to join East West, the trial judge characterised the application as one to "substitute a party rather than to add one" and applied s 64 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (CPA) on the basis that there had been "a mistake in the name of the party" within the meaning of s 64(4) of that Act. Although the trial judge did not make an order to that effect, he made it clear that the date on which the statement of claim was filed was the date on which the amendment should take effect, i.e. on 23 November 2001.

Proceedings against Ansett were discontinued on 6 March 2009.

Dust Diseases Tribunal Decision

Judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $138,757.20 and East West was granted leave to appeal.

At the hearing, the trial judge was asked to consider whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim. Section 11(1) of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (DDT Act) relevantly provides:

"11(1) If:

(a) A person is suffering, or has suffered, from a dust-related condition or a person who has died was, immediately before death suffering from a dust-related condition, ...

proceedings for damages in respect of that dust-related condition or death may be brought before the Tribunal and may not be brought or entertained before any other Court or Tribunal."

To the extent that there is a definition relevant to the meaning of "dust", this is provided by s 3 of the DDT Act which states as follows:

"Dust-related condition means -

(a) A disease specified in Schedule 1; or

(b) Any other pathological condition of the lungs, pleura or peritoneum that is attributable to dust;"

It was common ground that the plaintiff did not suffer from one of the diseases specified in Schedule 1. Accordingly, the issue before the trial judge was whether the plaintiff's injury fell within subs (b).

The evidence at trial on this issue came from the plaintiff and two experts. The plaintiff's evidence was that the cabin of the aircraft became filled with a thick, dense smoke, white-grey in colour, which continued to pour through vents into the cabin for about 20 minutes. The two experts agreed that if one could look through a microscope or other aid, what one would have seen in the smoke was ultra small particles of carbon.

In considering the question of jurisdiction, the trial judge stated, at paragraph 86, as follows:

"In my view, the wording of the relevant sections of the Act encompasses smoke as a dust. In s 3, a dust related condition is relevantly any pathological condition of the lungs attributable to dust. In ordinary common parlance, dust encompasses smoke or ash. Dust may need to be distinguished from gas, fume or vapour. The distinction would be that dust comprises particulate matter. Smoke comprises particulate matter and, accordingly, is more comfortably described as dust rather than gas, fume or vapour. .... If, through the microscope or other aid, one could see the particulate matter without the smoky haze, most people would recognise the particulate matter as dust."

The trial judge also stated at paragraph 90:

"The term ["dust"] is not a scientific or technical term. It is an ordinary, common English word and it takes its meaning from the text and context in which it appears in the DDT Act. Evidence from experts that terms such as dust, fume, vapour, mist, gas and smoke have certain meanings is not relevant and I do not consider such evidence in coming to a view about what "dust" means in the DDT Act. What is useful, however, is that the experts describe material that is suspended in the air as aerosol. It may be solid or liquid. It is clear that smoke in the cabin of the aircraft on 4 March 1992 was an aerosol that contained solid matter."

The trial judge held that the smoke to which the plaintiff was exposed contained particulate matter that could be described as a "dust" and accordingly, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear her claim. The trial judge awarded the plaintiff damages pursuant to ss 151G and 151H of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA) (as they were at 23 November 2001).

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal delivered a unanimous decision dismissing East West's appeal.

On appeal, East West argued that the failure of the DDT Act to refer to "smoke" in the context of a dust-related condition and the absence of any mention of "smoke" in the Second Reading Speeches relating to the DDT Act, meant that, implicitly, the DDT Act intended that the concept of "smoke" should not be included in the meaning of "dust". East West also argued that the word "dust" as used in the DDT Act should not be given its ordinary meaning. It submitted that the meaning to be given to the word "dust" was to be qualified by the overall context of the DDT Act and by its purpose as indicated in the Second Reading Speeches.

The Court of Appeal rejected East West's submissions, stating at paragraphs [61] to [62]:

"We do not agree. "Dust" is not defined in the Act. The only definition which provides guidance is that of a "dust-related condition" which is expressed in wide and unqualified terms. There is nothing in the wording of the Act which would impose the qualification sought by the appellant. In those circumstances his Honour was entitled to give to the word "dust" its ordinary meaning.

In relation to the appellant's first submission, His Honour did not find that, as a matter of general principle, "smoke" was a "dust" within the meaning of the Act. What he found was that the specific smoke to which the respondent was exposed contained small particles of particulate matter which would settle after being suspended in air and which could be correctly described as "dust". This was not a decision as to a point of law but a factual determination."

The Court of Appeal held that what was being challenged by East West was not a decision in point of law within the meaning of s 32(1) of the DDT Act, but rather, was a factual finding of the trial judge and accordingly, it was not appealable.

East West also challenged the trial judge's interlocutory decision, that the joinder of East West to the proceedings should have effect from the date of the commencement of the proceedings (23 November 2001) and not from the date of joinder (27 August 2007), as well as his assessment of the plaintiff's damages.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge's finding that the circumstances in which East West was joined to the proceedings amounted to a mistake in the name of the party and accordingly, engaged s 64(4) of the CPA. That being so, East West was to be treated as if it were a party from the commencement of the proceedings.

As to damages, the Court of Appeal rejected East West's submission that the trial judge's findings were so absurd as to amount to an error of law and noted that an assessment of this kind involves the exercise of discretion and findings of fact. Accordingly, since the appellant's challenge was to a finding of fact and not to a decision in point of law, a challenge to s 151G of the WCA was not made out. East West's challenge to s 151H of the WCA was dependent upon a successful challenge to the application of s 151G and accordingly, it was also not made out.

The Court of Appeal also held that the trial judge had taken into account questions of mitigation when considering economic loss and noted that the trial judge had referred to the plaintiff's capacity for work and her applications for employment in his judgment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that there was no error of law in the trial judge failing to refer specifically to s 151L of the WCA which deals with mitigation of damages.


The Court of Appeal's findings in relation to jurisdiction, namely, that particulate matter contained in smoke may be a "dust" within the meaning of the DDT Act, potentially broadens the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is apparent that all smoke contains particulate matter, whether ultra small particles invisible to the naked eye or macroscopic particles which are readily visible. Arguably, the same could be said of any airborne substance such as a gas, fume or vapour despite the Court's apparent attempt to distinguish those substances.

Accordingly, cases such as fire fighter cases, tobacco smoke cases, airline cases, industrial exposure cases and related occupier and public liability cases could all conceivably be brought in the Tribunal. It appears that the only caveat to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal being enlivened is that the particulate matter in the smoke or other airborne substance must be causative of the plaintiff's injury (i.e. attributable to dust) and that the injury itself must relate to the lungs, pleura or peritoneum.

The decision may have national implications given that each state and territory has similarly worded legislation which does not currently embrace "smoke cases". An Application for Special Leave is currently under consideration.

1. Judgment of Allsop P, Handley AJA and Hoeben J

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.