NSW Caselaw
Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales
CITATION : Ridgway v Amaca Pty Ltd [2004] NSWDDT 42 PARTIES : Richard Wakefield Ridgway Amaca Pty Limited MATTER NUMBER(S) : 375 of 2002 JUDGMENT OF: Walker J at 1 CATCHWORDS: :- LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 23/02/04, 17/03/04, 23/06/04 & 14/09/04 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/2004
FOR PLAINTIFF: Mr G F Little, SC instructed by Watkins Tapsell LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR DEFENDANT: Mr G Watson, SC instructed by Phillips Fox Lawyers
JUDGMENT:
THE CLAIM.
1. This is an action in negligence by Richard Wakefield Ridgway against Amaca Pty Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the action arises in consequence of his exposure to and inhaling of asbestos dust and fibre in the following circumstances: 1. As an assistant and bystander to the construction of his home on his sheep property over a period of 10 weeks in 1970. The plaintiff alleges that 254 sheets of asbestos manufactured by the defendant were used by the builders in the construction of the home. It is the plaintiff's allegation that the handling, sawing cutting and fixing of those sheets produced asbestos dust and fibre to which he was exposed. He further alleges that he unloaded semitrailers containing that asbestos sheeting. He also alleges that he carried the off cuts from the sheets to a dump on his property to dispose of them and cleaned up after the builders including sweeping up asbestos dust.
2. In July 1982 he personally constructed an extension to the home using asbestos sheeting manufactured by the defendant. That work involved unloading sheets from a truck, shaping and cutting them with a high-speed angle grinder, fixing the sheets onto the frames and cleaning up afterwards.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate