Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION : (Re Chapman) State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Amaca Pty Limited & Anor (No. 3) [2004] NSWDDT 31 State Rail Authority of New South Wales PARTIES : Amaca Pty Limited Wallaby Grip Ltd MATTER NUMBER(S) : 38 of 1997 CC 1 JUDGMENT OF: Duck J at 1 CATCHWORDS: :- LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 1/6/04 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/01/2004 FOR CROSS CLAIMANT: Mr M Holmes, QC and Ms T Moisidis instructed by Dexter Healey LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR CROSS DEFENDANT: Mr G Watson, SC instructed by Phillips Fox JUDGMENT: 1. What is tendered is an extract of the report of the Director-General of Health from 1927. Objection is taken because material of similar type was part of the material considered by the Tribunal and SRA New South Wales v Wallaby Grip. The judgment of his Honour Judge Curtis reported in 1999 18NSWCCR commencing at 193. His Honour reviewed a great deal of material. At par 108 he expressed his views with a statement commencing: There is no evidence that between 1938 and 1950 the SRA had actual knowledge of the dangers to health posed by visible clouds of asbestos dust. 2. Ultimately the judge proceeded to determine the matter by reference to that finding, which he contrasted with actual knowledge on the part of James Hardie. At this stage, without knowing more about where the present proceedings are going, I do not see that a conclusion expressed in those terms precludes this Court from receiving the evidence. What use will be made of it we will have to see. I do not purport to deal with the matter on the basis of the grant of leave; I simply rule that the evidence is admissible and we will see where we go from there. Mr M Holmes, QC and Ms T Moisidis instructed by Dexter Healey appeared for the Cross-Claimant Mr G Watson, SC instructed by Phillips Fox appeared for the Cross-Defendant DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.