Have any questions? Call us: 
A judge has ruled that increases in living standards and rising living costs warrant a big general damages uplift when assessed at common law.
The events giving rise to the ruling began half a century ago.
Between January and April 1972, shortly after migrating to Queensland, Walter Greenall worked for James Hardie & Co, later re-named Amaca Pty Ltd.
His roofing work required sheets of asbestos cement to routinely be handled, cut, drilled and installed.The process generated clouds of fine dust and fibres that drifted through the air and settled on workers’ clothing and skin.
At the time, Walter was given no mask and no respiratory protection. The work environment offered little control of dust.
As the judge later observed, this exposure was sufficient to allow microscopic asbestos fibres to enter Walter’s lungs where they would remain for decades.
Walter was born on 27 December 1933 in the United Kingdom and spent much of his working life doing hard physical labour.
For many years nothing seemed wrong. Walter lived an active life. He worked as a roofer and machine operator and retired in 1998 at the age of 65. In retirement he remained busy and independent. Friends and family described him as energetic for a man in his late seventies and early eighties.
Then, almost fifty years after the asbestos exposure, the disease began to emerge. In March 2021 Walter suffered a fall at home. CT scans and other tests revealed thickening of the pleura — the lining of the lung — a classic sign associated with asbestos disease.
A biopsy later confirmed the diagnosis: malignant pleural mesothelioma, the most aggressive form of asbestos-related cancer.
Medical oncologist Dr Branko Bilinski explained that this disease spreads rapidly along the lining of the lungs, causing progressive breathlessness, pain and exhaustion. The median survival time is typically only months.
Walter underwent repeated procedures to drain fluid from his lungs. Despite treatment attempts, his breathing deteriorated steadily. Strong opioid medication was required for pain. His sleep became disturbed and his energy drained away.
Walter had long been the primary carer for his wife Audrey, who had Alzheimer’s disease. Before the cancer diagnosis he cooked meals, drove Audrey to appointments and managed the household.
As his breathing worsened his son John and daughter-in-law Sharon moved into the house to help care for both of them.
By early 2022 the disease had advanced dramatically. Walter had lost significant weight, required oxygen and could barely move around the house. On 2 February 2022 he was admitted to palliative care. He died at the age of 88 less than a month later.
The litigation that followed was brought by his son Philip Greenall as the legal personal representative of Walter’s estate.
It did not concern liability — Amaca accepted that the asbestos exposure had been caused by its negligence. The argument focused instead on what sums were appropriate to award for general damages and for loss of life expectancy.
The estate argued for $800,000 in general damages to reflect both his suffering and the loss of his ability to care for his wife.
Amaca contended for a much smaller figure noting that at age 88 he had a statistical life expectancy of only around five years and that his pain had lasted less than a year before his death.
Justice Paul Smith approached the task by examining comparable cases, jury verdicts, defamation damages and general damages awards in other jurisdictions.
He acknowledged the sums awarded in decades past as common law damages were no longer appropriate and that interstate damages awards in personal injury and defamation cases in recent years have significantly increased.
“The assessment of general damages in more modern times has moved on… The cost of living is increasing and Australians have an increased quality of life than what they had decades ago,” he observed.
He was obliged – he ruled – to take into account interstate awards having regard to the High Court’s dictum that there “is one common law of Australia”.
Jury decisions in defamation cases also had to be considered because they reflected community values.
He also acknowledged that an additional component for general damages can be awarded to reflect the loss of capacity to provide gratuitous service is appropriate in the assessment of general damages.
Taking these factors into account, the judge awarded $420,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life, including the distress associated with being unable to care for Audrey.
A separate debate concerned loss of life expectancy. Traditionally Australian courts treat this as a modest or “conventional” award rather than a large economic calculation.
The estate argued that earlier authorities suggested a figure closer to $20,000 in modern terms, while the defendant maintained that the appropriate conventional amount was only $5,000.
Justice Smith accepted that the award is necessarily symbolic rather than mathematical. It recognises that the negligent act shortened a person’s life but does not attempt to place a full monetary value on the years lost.
In Walter’s case, despite his age, the evidence showed his life expectancy had been reduced by more than five years because of the asbestos disease. The judge therefore assessed damages for loss of life expectancy at $15,000.
When interest and special damages were added, the total assessment was $542,000.
Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 16 Smith J, 19 February 2026
Categories: Damages