Kenneth Wallace v Amaca Pty Limited [2007] NSWDDT 6

Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales

CITATION : Kenneth Wallace v Amaca Pty Limited [2007] NSWDDT 6

PARTIES : Kenneth Wallace Amaca Pty Limited

MATTER NUMBER(S) : 6240 of 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Kearns J

CATCHWORDS: Dust Diseases Tribunal :- further amendment to verdict and judgment to adjust interest component

CASES CITED: Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 15 January 2007

Mr Smith of Turner Freeman appeared for the plaintiff LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr Gregory of DLA Phillips Fox appeared for the defendant

JUDGMENT: 2 Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales Matter No 6240 of 2006 Kenneth Wallace v Amaca Pty Limited (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited) 15 January 2007 JUDGMENT KEARNS J 1. There will be a further amendment to the reasons and to the resultant verdict and judgment. When I delivered reasons for judgment on 11 January 2007 I allowed interest on GRIFFITHS v KERKEMEYER over the period from the commencement of its claim at half the relevant interest rate which I understood would come in at 4.5 per cent. The principal figure for GRIFFITHS v KERKEMEYER was put to me then as being $11,470.80 and that figure was again put to me this morning. The figure for interest that was given to me when I delivered reasons for judgment was a figure of $516.18. That in fact would be an interest figure for a period of 12 months. The GRIFFITHS v KERKEMEYER claim commences on 1 July 2006 and runs through until 31 December 2006, that is a period of six months. In my view it is appropriate in the circumstances to halve the figure of $516.18 and allow $258.09 for interest on GRIFFITHS v KERKEMEYER. 2. In some ways this does a disservice to both parties. It does a disservice to the defendant in that in the early period of the claim the GRIFFITHS v KERKEMEYER allowance is relatively small. On the other hand it does a disservice to the plaintiff in that it cuts off his allowance to interest at 31 December 2006 and does not allow him interest after that. Allowance for interest is not something that can be precise and can only be broad brush and accordingly I think it is appropriate to leave the allowance at $258.09. 3. Further, when I delivered reasons for judgment on 11 January 2007 I entered a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $185,386.98. It was later drawn to my attention that I had not dealt with the claim for loss of expectation of life in the reasons for judgment and that was so and I have dealt with that and did so on 11 January 2007 in an addendum to judgment which has now been handed to the parties. As a result the verdict and judgment that I had entered for the plaintiff in the earlier stated figure was amended to a figure of $195,386.98. In light of the adjustment that now needs to be made for the GRIFFITHS v KERKEMEYER interest the verdict and judgment needs to be further amended by deducting therefrom a figure of $258.09 so that the resultant verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be in the sum of $195,128.89 and I amend the verdict and judgment accordingly to that amount. ********** Mr Smith appeared for the plaintiff Mr Gregory appeared for the defendant