KATIDIS v MMI LTD and ORS [1995] NSWCA 232

KATIDIS v MMI LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MEAGHER, POWELL and COLE JJA 7 March 1995, 8 March 1995 [1995] NSWCA 232

Drawing of inference.

Meagher JA I agree with Cole JA. Powell JA I agree with Cole JA.

Cole JA The appellant, Apostolos Katidis is dying of mesothelioma. He brought a claim in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales against MMI Ltd, the first respondent, as the insurer of his previous employer, C R Dickson and Co Pty Ltd ("the Dickson company") pursuant to the provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions! Act 1946. In addition he sued Meggitt Overseas Ltd which between | January 1966 and 30 September 1966 was known as Bells Asbestos and Engineering (Australia) Ltd, and Wallaby Grip (BAE) Pty Ltd (In liquidation) which between | January 1967 and 31 December 1976 was known as Bells Asbestos and Engineering Pty Ltd. The plaintiff was employed by the Dickson company between 1966 and 1976. Answers to interrogatories provided by the second and third respondents, and tendered against them in the proceedings, established that each of those two respondents supplied to C R Dickson and Co Pty Ltd between | January 1966 and 30 September 1976 products described as "Bells' asbestos composition, Bells' asbestos rope, Bells' asbestos gloves and Bells' asbestos gauntlets".

The appellant claims that the mesothelioma suffered by him resulted from exposure to asbestos dust at his place of employment between 1966 and 1976. He sued the insurer of his former employer on statutory and common law counts, and sued the second and third respondents in negligence.

The hearing, in the sense of taking of evidence, concluded before Judge Maguire on | March 1995. Oral submissions were presented on 2 March 1995. His Honour indicated that he wished to hear submissions upon whether there was any evidence that the appellant was exposed to asbestos at the bottle factory where he worked for the Dickson company!. It was accepted that there was no direct evidence of exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff's case depending upon inferences2. Judge Maguire made clear that, at that time, the question of exposure to asbestos was the only matter upon which he wished to hear addresses3. Submissions on that matter concluded on 2 March 1995. Judgment was delivered by his Honour on Friday 3 March 1995.