James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Carley

[1999] NSWCA 80

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Asbestos exposure
4. › Mesothelioma
5. › Place where cause of action arose
6. › Whether tort committed in New South Wales or New Zealand
7. › Products manufactured in Australia and exported to New Zealand
1. Private International Law
2. › Choice of law
3. › Place of tort
4. › Privative provisions of foreign statute
5. › Whether substantive or procedural
6. › New Zealand Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Parties
3. › Plaintiff deceased
4. › Legal representative of estate
5. › Proceedings continuing in absence of legal personal representative
6. › Supreme Court Rules, Pt 8 r 16(1)

Quick Take

Where asbestos products are manufactured in NSW but exposure occurs in New Zealand, the cause of action arises in New Zealand, not NSW. The privative provisions of the New Zealand accident compensation legislation are substantive, not procedural, and bar claims in NSW. The mere export of asbestos-containing products is not of itself tortious.

Case Details

Citation[1999] NSWCA 80

CourtNSWCA

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by3

2006Amaca Pty Ltd v Bernard George FrostNSWCA 173
2004Frost v Amaca Pty LtdNSWCA 358
and 1 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in