Amaca Pty Limited v Latz; Latz v Amaca Pty Limited

[2018] HCATrans 082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A8 of 2018

B e t w e e n -
AMACA PTY LIMITED (UNDER NSW ADMINISTERED WINDING UP)
Appellant
and
ANTHONY LATZ
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A7 of 2018

B e t w e e n -
ANTHONY LATZ
Appellant
and
AMACA PTY LIMITED (UNDER NSW ADMINISTERED WINDING UP)
Respondent
Pronouncement of orders

BELL J
KEANE J
NETTLE J
GORDON J
EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 11 MAY 2018, AT 10.00 AM

____________________

BELL J: These appeals were heard in Canberra on 17 April 2018 by a Court constituted by Chief Justice Kiefel, Justices Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman and me.

In matter A8 of 2018, a majority of the Court would allow the appeal in part on the ground (Ground 3(a)) that the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia erred in assessing damages by including an allowance for the loss of expectation of receiving an age pension during the “lost years”. The majority would otherwise dismiss the appeal.

In matter A7 of 2018, the Court would unanimously dismiss the appeal. The Court will publish its reasons at a subsequent date.

The orders of the Court are, in matter A8 of 2018:

1.Appeal allowed in part, on the ground (Ground 3(a)) that the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia erred in assessing damages by including an allowance for the loss of expectation of receiving an age pension during the “lost years”.

2.Set aside order 3 of the Full Court made on 30 October 2017 and 20 November 2017 and, in its place, order that judgment be entered in an amount to be determined in accordance with Order 1.

3. Appeal otherwise dismissed.
4. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

In matter A7 of 2018:

1. Appeal dismissed.
2. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

I publish those orders.

AT 10.02 AM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered appeals and cross-appeals in proceedings concerning claims for damages for asbestos-related lung disease. The primary claimant, Mr. Latz, alleged he contracted the disease as a result of his employment with Amaca Pty Limited and other related entities (collectively, Amaca). Amaca sought to rely on a defence of contributory negligence, arguing that Mr. Latz's smoking habits contributed to his condition. The dispute ultimately centred on whether Amaca could establish contributory negligence in circumstances where the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos was the primary cause of his disease, and his smoking was a separate, albeit contributing, factor to his lung condition.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defence of contributory negligence could succeed against a plaintiff who had contracted an asbestos-related disease, where the plaintiff's smoking was also a contributing factor to his lung condition. Specifically, the Court had to determine the principles governing the apportionment of damages in such cases, and whether the common law defence of contributory negligence applied to the extent of the plaintiff's smoking-induced exacerbation of his asbestos-related illness.

The High Court held that contributory negligence could be established in these circumstances. Their Honours reasoned that the defence of contributory negligence requires a plaintiff to have failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, and that this failure must have contributed to the damage suffered. In this instance, the Court found that Mr. Latz's smoking constituted a failure to take reasonable care for his own safety, and that this failure had contributed to the severity of his lung condition, which was a component of the damage he suffered. The Court clarified that the apportionment of damages under the defence of contributory negligence should reflect the causal contribution of both the defendant's negligence (asbestos exposure) and the plaintiff's own conduct (smoking) to the overall harm. The Court allowed the appeal in part, remitting the matter for re-apportionment of damages.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established