Dust Diseases Tribunal (Standard Presumptions—Apportionment) Order 2007 (2007-142) (NSW)

Dust Diseases Tribunal (Standard Presumptions—Apportionment) Order 2007

I, Robert John Debus MP, the Attorney General, in pursuance of clause 49 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation 2007, make the following Order. Dated, this nineteenth day of March 2007.

BOB DEBUS, M.P.,Attorney General

1 Name of Order This Order is the Dust Diseases Tribunal (Standard Presumptions—Apportionment) Order 2007.

2 Commencement This Order commences on the date it is published in the Gazette.

3 Adoption of standard presumptions on apportionment The presumptions set out in Schedule 1 are the standard presumptions as to apportionment for the purposes of clause 49 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation 2007.

4 Repeal of Dust Diseases Tribunal (Standard Presumptions—Apportionment) Order 2005 The Dust Diseases Tribunal (Standard Presumptions—Apportionment) Order 2005 is repealed.

Schedule 1 Standard apportionment—process and presumptions (Clause 3)

1 Introduction (1) On Tuesday 8 March 2005, the NSW Government Report of the Review of Legal and Administrative Costs in Dust Diseases Compensation Claims (the Review) was released. (2) The Review found that early settlement of claims ought be encouraged with the result that fewer cases would need to be determined before the Dust Diseases Tribunal (DDT). (3) It also found upon a review of the files of the DDT that in nearly half of those cases (48 percent) there were two or more defendants. It found, unsurprisingly, that disputes as to contribution between defendants contributed significantly to legal costs. It found that a new claims resolution process was necessary to encourage defendants to resolve their disputes quickly and commercially without delaying the resolution of a claimant's claim. (4) The Review identified a reform process which had as one of its key steps the following: Defendants will seek to agree on apportionment of liability. If they cannot agree, an independent third party will determine the apportionment using standard presumptions. The determination can be challenged, but only after the claimant's case is settled or determined.