Woodford v Bluescope Steel [2007] NSWDDT 16

Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales

CITATION : Woodford v Bluescope Steel [2007] NSWDDT 16

PARTIES : Colin Woodford (Plaintiff) Bluescope Steel (AIS) P/L

MATTER NUMBER(S) : 6145 of 2006

JUDGMENT OF: O'Meally P

Dust Diseases Tribunal :- Notice of Motion Insufficient particulars of costs of care Mediation failed CATCHWORDS: Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation clauses 29 46(3) and 67 - costs order may be made only after successful party identified

LEGISLATION CITED: Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation 2007

DATES OF HEARING: 31 July 2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31 July 2007

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 31 July 2007

Mr D J R Toomey instructed by Russell McLelland Brown Lawyers, appeared for the Plaintiff LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr T M Rowles instructed by Sparke Helmore, appeared for the Defendant

JUDGMENT:

RULING O'MEALLY P 1 On 14 June 2006 Colin Woodford issued a statement of claim against Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd alleging that in the course of his employment by the defendant he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos dust and fibre as a consequence of which he has developed asbestos related pleural disease. He alleges that the exposure was negligent and also in breach of the defendant's statutory duty.

2 In accordance with the provisions of the Dust Diseases Regulation 2005, which was replaced by the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation 2007, the plaintiff's claim was referred to a mediator for compulsory mediation.

3 It is appropriate to note that in his statement of claim the plaintiff sought damages for past and future domestic assistance. Such claims were, however, expressed in the vaguest of terms. Paragraph 13 of the statement of claim is: 13. The Plaintiff claims that he has required domestic assistance and will provide particulars of this in due course. 4 Paragraph 14 is: 14. The Plaintiff claims, and the fact is, that he will continue to need domestic assistance in the form of housekeeping, nursing and handyman assistance for the rest of his life, particulars of which will be supplied in due course. 5 When the matter went to mediation the mediation failed because, inter alia, of the plaintiff's failure to provide particulars of the costs of future care and assistance as required by the regulation.