Compensation stands but Rio gets review
The High Court has allowed mining giant Rio Tinto to challenge a compensation ruling over a former worker dying from asbestos-related disease.
Zorko Zabic, 74, worked at the Gove alumina refinery in the Northern territory during the 1970s.
His work involved cleaning asbestos from pipes, which he says was a key factor behind his diagnosis with mesothelioma early last year.
In March this year, Mr Zabic won a case against Rio Tinto with a Court of Appeal ruling that the disease was contracted the first day asbestos fibres entered his lungs.
This came after the Supreme Court ruled that he had developed the cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos dust and negligence by the mine operators Alcan Gove, who subsequently sold the mine to Rio Tinto.
Rio Tinto must pay Mr Zabic $425,000 in compensation, but the High Court will let the company challenge the ruling.
While the compensation will be paid either way, this latest chapter will set a precedent for asbestos victims in the Northern Territory.
Lawyers representing Mr Zabic have told reporters that if “a determination is made which supports the findings of the Court of Appeal in the Northern Territory”, then that will “entitle victims of asbestos disease in the Territory to seek justice”.
A statement from Rio Tinto said the earlier Court of Appeal decision was not consistent with similar court decisions across Australia.
“Our thoughts are with Mr Zabic and his family during this extremely difficult time, and we have paid compensation in keeping with the Court of Appeal finding,” the Rio Tinto statement said.
“We have never sought to deny Mr Zabic access to fair compensation but simply to clarify the correct process for seeking it.
“Rio Tinto remains of the view that legislation in the Northern Territory requires claims such as Mr Zabic's to be resolved through the workers compensation scheme, which has been specifically designed to resolve workplace injuries including relating to asbestos, and provides more timely and certain outcomes than common law action.”