In litigation seeking compensation for asbestos exposure, an
interlocutory application was brought by the first defendant,
Seltsam Pty Ltd, seeking testing of the plaintiff's explanted
lung. The application required the court to consider whether the
explanted lung could be classed as property and as such whether an
order could be made to have the explanted lung subjected to
specialised testing irrespective of the plaintiff's lack of
consent.
Background
The plaintiff, Mr David James, alleged that whilst working at
the Wunderlich factory in Sunshine (Victoria) between approximately
1966 and 1967, and 1970 and 1972, he had been negligently exposed
to asbestos dust and fibre by reason of the defendants'
conduct, which resulted in the plaintiff suffering from
asbestosis.1 Experts were engaged by both parties to
determine the root cause of the plaintiff's asbestosis.
However, both experts had differing opinions of the causative
factor.
