Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 DECEMBER 2008

Dust Diseases – Evidence & Expert Witneses

In BI (Contracting) Pty Limited v University of Adelaide [2008] NSWCA 210, the NSW Court of Appeal reaffirmed that its role is not to disturb findings of fact made by primary judges.

AustraliaEmployment and HR
Con Gotis-Graham
Con Gotis-Graham

In BI (Contracting) Pty Limited v University of Adelaide [2008] NSWCA 210, the NSW Court of Appeal reaffirmed that its role is not to disturb findings of fact made by primary judges. The Court also confirmed that expert witnesses who were not practising at the time of an alleged tort, can still give opinion evidence on what the acceptable standard or knowledge was at the time of the alleged tort.

Facts

In 1961, the plaintiff, Professor Rowley was a member of staff at the University of Adelaide's Faculty of Medicine.

At that time construction work was being carried out on the Medical School at the Adelaide campus.

The appellant, BI (Contracting) (BIC) had been subcontracted by the University to fireproof structural steel beams. This work involved spraying the beams with a mixture consisting of amosite asbestos, chrysotile asbestos, cement and a bonding agent.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from