Document zz00m8LyZJ3MpgQZRjkyoq0gz

developed mesothelioma in Perth and that this condition is y being reiateo oacx to her cnildhood ac Wictencora where ner father was working for A.3.A. Limited. So far CSR iias not received any notice of claim but the matter has been drawn to the attention of Mr Leith in Perth by the W.A. Commissioner of Public Health, Dr J C McNulty. It was decided to seek a legal opinion as to the Company's position in this case and in possible future\ cases. Our Sydney solicitors, Sly and Russell, sought the advice of Messrs Robinson, Cox and Co. who are CSR's solicitors in Perth. To summarise the advice given by both the W.A. solicitors and Sly and Russell: .1 CSR Limited itself has no legal liability at all: .2 Midalco Pty. Ltd. (which was formerly A.S.A. Limited and which is a wholly owned subsidiary of CSR Limited) has a somewhat different^ legal position as follows: a. It is possible that the claim would be statute barred, due to the lapse of six years from tne cause of action. However, the date upon which the cause of action arose would not be easy to determine or identify. -It depends on wnen the disease started to manifest itself and not necessarily on the date of inhalation of the dust or her death. b. Midalco could argue that there is _no breach of the duty or care because v/e did not know at tne time that t?7ese consequences were likely to result from the inhalation of dust. This line of defence would be stronger in relation to inhalation of the dust prior to the publication of Dr Wagner's paper in 1960 which clearly established the connection between inhalation of asbestos fibres and mesothelioma. Once this paper was published an applicant has a much better argument that the Company should have known the consequences of inhalation of dust and that therefore the duty of care was clear. Apart from the above legal situation it is possible that CSR may wish to make a payment in the event of there being C 3589 % yv 3lt some formal claim either from the woman concerned or from her husband following her death. Such a payment couid be mace on an ex gratia basis wit;-,out admission of liability ar.d this would not affect our position ir, any similar future claim. The letter accompanying suc.n a payment would need to be careful worded and should be drafted by our solicitors. Recommends tion As the legai position has now been clarified it is suggested chat we should do nothin: unjil some form of claim is made on c'ne Company ana that we' snould' then simply consider whether an ex gratia payment should be made. Lung Cancer Oeath Advice was recently received from Perth of the death from lung cancer of a former employee of A.3.A. Limited. This man, Mr Wielinaa, worked at A.B.A. from July 1955 to January 1 1959 as a leading hand..sampler. His deatn on 2TTlarch 1975, 1 was 'held to be due to carcinoma of the lung due to asbestosilj.cosis. This is different to mesothelioma which is cancer'of the pleura. The claim resulting from this man's death will be heard before the Workers Compensation Board on 19 May 1976. The claim will be dealt with by the W.A. State Government Insurance Office who were A.B.A. Limited's insurers. N E Irving