By: Cassandra Wills

Though the use of asbestos in Australia was phased out approximately 40 years ago, dust claims have been a topical issue recently due to the rush of silicosis claims arising out of exposure to engineered stone. Whilst dust claims are certainly not a new area for personal injury claims, three recent decisions show how the dust space in Queensland is still an ever-evolving area of law – especially in relation to the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages.

Cassandra Wills highlights three recent decisions handed down in July 2024 relevant to the dust space.

Martin v Amaca Pty Ltd – Supreme Court of Queensland Claim 14524/23

This landmark Queensland Supreme Court decision resulted in an award of damages of $1.21 million with $800,000 awarded for general damages to the plaintiff, Mr Martin, who had been suffering from mesothelioma for approximately 13 years.

The jury accepted the top of the range general damages figure of $800,000 put forward by the plaintiff’s senior counsel. No comparative verdicts nor any reference to the Civil Liability Act schedules (which set out the ISV range of general damages) were provided to the jury for their consideration.

The award overtakes the decision of Amaca Pty Limited v King [2011] VSCA 447, a Victorian decision where $730,000 was awarded for general damages more than 13 years ago.

Keogh v CPB Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2024] NSWDDT

The NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal (DDT) discussed care and assistance under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA) and made findings in contradiction to how the Act has traditionally been applied in Queensland.

The NSW DDT found that the plaintiff was not restricted in obtaining damages for future paid care and assistance in relation to services which were currently being provided gratuitously out of love and affection, rather than as a result of the injury.

Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd [2024] QCA 132

The plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed in relation to whether s 237 of the WCRA abolished the right of the First Plaintiff, the legal personal representative of the estate of the late Mr Greenall (Deceased), to bring a wrongful death claim for the benefit of the Second Plaintiff, the deceased’s widow (Widow), in relation to domestic services lost by the Widow as a result of his death.

This decision, which deals with an interpretation issue in respect of the relevant workers’ compensation legislation, is especially pertinent to dust cases where the plaintiff’s injury in the course of their employment ultimately results in the plaintiff’s death.

The implications

The first two decisions will see significant increases in the damages sought by plaintiffs in this space. The last two decisions, whilst interpreting Queensland legislation, will impact how plaintiffs, employers and occupiers approach dust claims nationally given the issues at play.

If you’d like to discuss any aspect of these decisions or how W+K can support you with dust claims, please contact our local office leads.