In apportioning liability under s 5(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) among successive employers who each materially contributed to a worker's mesothelioma, the court is not required to apportion equally merely because medical evidence cannot identify which exposure caused the disease. The court may have regard to relative blameworthiness and causal potency, including duration of exposure, concentration of asbestos, and the state of knowledge about asbestos dangers. E M Baldwin & Son Pty Ltd v Plane is confined to its facts and does not establish a general principle of equal apportionment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.