What happened
Before mesothelioma, the claimant was in good health and had retired to care for his wife, who had dementia. His illness prevented him continuing that care, and the family could not provide full-time care after his death. Liability was admitted.
The issues
The issue was whether s 15B damages could be assessed using the hours of home care lost and the statutory hourly rate, rather than the expected cost of institutional care. The claimant also challenged findings about his wife's life expectancy and hours of care.
The court's decision
Both appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed. The statute did not require commercial nursing-home costs to be the starting point or sole measure. The cross-appeal challenged factual findings outside the court's limited jurisdiction to review errors of law.
Understanding the figures
The historical AUD total award of $780,713 remained intact. That was the whole award, not the s 15B care component alone. Amaca was ordered to pay appeal costs, with no costs order on the cross-appeal.
What this case shows
Losing the ability to care for another person differs from needing care oneself. This case focuses on the statutory entitlement and whose loss it compensates; the valuation need not mirror how the damages will ultimately be spent.
Why another case may differ
The decision concerns the legislation in 2014 and an appeal from the Dust Diseases Tribunal limited to errors of law. Satisfaction of the s 15B conditions was conceded, so the case does not establish that every injured family carer qualifies. Hours and life expectancy were specific factual findings.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →