Background
Robin Smith, a plumber, brought a personal-injury claim after developing asbestosis. In the primary judgment, the court found all three defendants liable and assessed Mr Smith’s damages at $1,896,200.85.
This follow-on judgment addressed the form of orders, contribution between the defendants, and costs. Amaca was the manufacturer defendant. North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Ltd and WorkCover Queensland were associated with workplace exposures; their liability was apportioned by agreed causal contribution between the relevant workplaces.
The Court’s Holding
Crow J entered judgment against Amaca for the full assessed damages of $1,896,200.85. The court reduced the recoverable amount against the second and third defendants by $224,555.10 in workers’ compensation payments under s 270 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), leaving $1,671,645.75. Applying the parties’ binding agreement, judgment was entered against North Queensland Bulk Ports for 73.1% of that net amount ($1,221,973.04) and against WorkCover for 26.9% ($449,672.71).
Under s 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), Amaca could recover 18.75% and 6.25% of its damages liability from the second and third defendants respectively; conversely, each of those defendants could recover 75% of its assessed damages liability from Amaca. The court also ordered costs to be apportioned 75% to Amaca, 18.75% to the second defendant, and 6.25% to the third defendant, with indemnity costs for Mr Smith after his 24 October 2025 offer. It rejected an indemnity-costs claim by the second and third defendants against Amaca, but awarded them standard costs of the contribution proceedings from 27 February 2025.
Key Takeaways
- Workers’ compensation payments reduced the judgment against the workplace-related defendants, but not the judgment entered against Amaca.
- The court gave effect to the parties’ agreed workplace-exposure allocation when entering judgment against the second and third defendants.
- A plaintiff who bettered a compliant UCPR offer received the usual standard-then-indemnity costs order; a bettered contribution offer did not, on these facts, establish an imprudent refusal warranting indemnity costs.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how damages, statutory compensation offsets, contribution rights, and costs can be dealt with separately after liability and quantum have been determined in an occupational-disease case. It also confirms that the costs consequences of a formal offer will ordinarily apply unless the opposing party establishes a reason for a different order.