Smith v Amaca Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2)
[2026] QSC 259 · Crow J
Robin Smith worked as a plumber and developed asbestosis, a lung disease, from exposure to asbestos at work, including asbestos products made by the first defendant, a manufacturer. In the earlier trial the court assessed his damages at about $1.9 million against all three defendants: the manufacturer, a port authority employer, and WorkCover Queensland.
This second judgment dealt with the final form of the orders and who should pay the legal costs. The court entered judgment against the manufacturer for the full sum, and against the two employer parties for reduced, apportioned amounts after deducting workers' compensation payments.
Because the plaintiff had earlier made a formal settlement offer (which the defendants did not accept) and then beat it at trial, the court ordered the defendants to pay his costs on a standard basis up to the offer and on a higher indemnity basis afterwards. The costs were split between the defendants according to their shares of responsibility.
Incident & injury
Occupational exposure to asbestos while employed as a plumber, including via asbestos products supplied by the manufacturer, causing asbestosis
- Body regions
- Respiratory
- Diagnoses
- Asbestosis
- Location
- Queensland (various workplaces including JR Wyllie & Sons, Racecourse Mill, Baker's Creek Meatworks)
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 28 October 2026
- Claim type
- WCRA Common Law
- Proceeding
- Costs
- Plaintiff outcome
- Successful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- Occupation
- Plumber Technician / Trade Worker
Outcome
Following the primary judgment ($1,896,200.85 damages assessed against all three defendants), the court settled the form of orders and costs. Judgment was entered against the first defendant (manufacturer) for the full sum, against the second and third defendants (employers/WorkCover) for apportioned net amounts after the s 270 WCRA reduction. The plaintiff obtained standard costs to 24 October 2025 and indemnity costs thereafter under UCPR r 360.
Defendants (3)
1 Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd)
Manufacturer
- Apportionment
- 75%
- Judgment against this defendant
- $1,896,201
2 North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Ltd
Employer (Port Authority)
- Apportionment
- 18.75%
- Judgment against this defendant
- $1,221,973
3 WorkCover Queensland
Statutory insurer (employer liabilities)
- Apportionment
- 6.25%
- Judgment against this defendant
- $449,673
Contribution orders
- North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Ltd ordered to contribute - to Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c) — 18.75% of damages assessed against the first defendant)
- WorkCover Queensland ordered to contribute - to Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c) — 6.25% of damages assessed against the first defendant)
- Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) ordered to contribute - to North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Ltd (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c) — 75% of damages assessed against the second defendant)
- Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) ordered to contribute - to WorkCover Queensland (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c) — 75% of damages assessed against the third defendant)
Key issues
Smith v Amaca Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2026] QSC 259
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.
Learn more about WorkCover common law claims in Queensland.