The applicant contracted emphysema as a result of exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke in her workplace. In an earlier decision, she was refused leave to bring proceedings for damages under the Accident Compensation Act because she was out of time. (See: Pattison v Herald & Weekly Times Limited [2012] VCC 2014 (19 December 2012)).
This was the hearing of the appeal against that decision. The applicant appealed on the grounds that the lower Court had failed to properly identify the compensable injury as emphysema rather than chronic obstructive airway disease, with the result that it erred in determining the date her injury was known.
The Court upheld the applicant's appeal, granting leave for her to bring proceedings for damages.
Note: the respondent unsuccessfully applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal. The transcript of the High Court's hearing and decision in that application is uploaded here under "Related Documents".
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
The applicant contracted emphysema as a result of exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke in her workplace. In an earlier decision, she was refused leave to bring proceedings for damages under the Accident Compensation Act because she was out of time. (See: Pattison v Herald & Weekly Times Limited [2012] VCC 2014 (19 December 2012)).
This was the hearing of the appeal against that decision. The applicant appealed on the grounds that the lower Court had failed to properly identify the compensable injury as emphysema rather than chronic obstructive airway disease, with the result that it erred in determining the date her injury was known.
The Court upheld the applicant's appeal, granting leave for her to bring proceedings for damages.
Note: the respondent unsuccessfully applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal. The transcript of the High Court's hearing and decision in that application is uploaded here under "Related Documents".