(Re: Mowbray) Brambles Holdings Ltd v. British American Tobacco Services Ltd
The plaintiff sued Brambles Holdings Ltd (Brambles), his former employer, alleging that he contracted carcinoma from his exposure to asbestos in the course of his work. Brambles settled with the plaintiff; however, Johns J gave Brambles leave to issue a cross claim against British American Tobacco (BAT) for contributing to the plaintiff's damage because the plaintiff had smoked BAT's cigarettes since the age of 14.
Prior to the cross claim being issued against BAT the plaintiff died. BAT appealed against the decision to allow Brambles to file the cross-claim against it on the basis that Brambles had delayed in doing so. BAT said that it had suffered prejudice as a result because it was no longer able to cross-examine the plaintiff. BAT said that Brambles had intentionally shut it out from obtaining that evidence.
The Court dismissed BAT's appeal on the basis that there was no requirement that BAT be notified of the cross claim or that it be issued by a particular time.
(Re: Mowbray) Brambles Holdings Ltd v British American Tobacco Services Ltd [2002] NSWDDT 16 (17 September 2002)
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.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"It is true that Brambles gave BAT no notice of the cross-claim until after it had settled its differences with the plaintiff and after he had died. It was open to Brambles to identify the producer of the two tobacco brands identified by the plaintiff before he died, but this does not mean it deliberately shut BAT out of the proceedings in order to deny it the opportunity of cross-examining the plaintiff. No condition that BAT be notified of the cross-claim or that it be served within a specified time was imposed by Johns J; neither is it the usual practice of the Tribunal to impose conditions when granting leave to issue cross-claims. Were it the case that BAT had been served before the plaintiff’s death it is by no means certain that it would have been given leave to question him, nor is it clear that his health would have justified or permitted such a course. The manner in which the case progressed after the plaintiff’s evidence was taken, that is with further interlocutory steps directed, suggests it was brought on with some urgency. The fact that evidence was taken from him at his home indicates his health was poor."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The plaintiff sued Brambles Holdings Ltd (Brambles), his former employer, alleging that he contracted carcinoma from his exposure to asbestos in the course of his work. Brambles settled with the plaintiff; however, Johns J gave Brambles leave to issue a cross claim against British American Tobacco (BAT) for contributing to the plaintiff's damage because the plaintiff had smoked BAT's cigarettes since the age of 14.
Prior to the cross claim being issued against BAT the plaintiff died. BAT appealed against the decision to allow Brambles to file the cross-claim against it on the basis that Brambles had delayed in doing so. BAT said that it had suffered prejudice as a result because it was no longer able to cross-examine the plaintiff. BAT said that Brambles had intentionally shut it out from obtaining that evidence.
The Court dismissed BAT's appeal on the basis that there was no requirement that BAT be notified of the cross claim or that it be issued by a particular time.