Case Background: Martin v. Amaca’s $1.21M Mesothelioma Award

In a groundbreaking decision for asbestos victims, the Supreme Court of Queensland has awarded a total of $1.21 million in damages to 77-year-old Kim Martin, who developed mesothelioma after prolonged exposure to asbestos products manufactured by James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited (now Amaca).

This marks the first time a Queensland court has awarded general damages for pain and suffering to a mesothelioma victim—and it is also the highest such award in Australian legal history. Mr Martin’s story is a stark reminder of the devastating legacy left behind by asbestos manufacturers. Between 1967 and 1975, he worked with James Hardie products and regularly attended their factories in both Queensland and Western Australia. In the late 1970s, he also cut and installed these products during home renovations—often with his bare hands—unaware of the serious health risks.

He was first diagnosed with pleural disease in 2013, and tragically, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2021—more than 50 years after his initial exposure. Despite the long delay, justice has finally been served. Mr Martin recalled that there were no warnings or signs about asbestos at the time. “I didn’t see any warning labels about asbestos or dust released from the asbestos cement sheets I carried and worked with. There were no signs at the James Hardie factories about the dangers of what we were handling,” he said.

The Decision

The jury awarded $800,000 for general damages and loss of life expectancy—an unprecedented amount—highlighting the seriousness of his suffering and the injustice he endured. The remainder of the compensation accounted for other losses, totalling $1.21 million. This decision, led by Slater & Gordon Lawyers, is a pivotal moment in Queensland’s legal history.

The plaintiff’s counsel put forward the figure of $800,000 for general damages, which the jury accepted. Bizarrely, no comparative judgements nor any reference to the usual award for general damages under the schedules within the Civil Liability Act were provided to the jury for consideration in determining the outcome.

Legal counsel Sean Sweeney hailed the outcome as a “watershed moment” and praised the jury’s courage in holding the manufacturer to account. “This is another important step towards holding these asbestos manufacturers accountable for their actions. James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited knew for decades that there was no safe level of exposure to asbestos, but they prioritised their profits over the health of the public,” Sweeney said. While no amount of money can undo the damage caused to Mr Martin or restore the time he has lost, this case represents long-overdue recognition of the harm caused by corporate negligence.

Key Takeaway

For those affected by asbestos exposure, this decision serves as a strong reminder that the legal system can and does deliver accountability, even decades later. Although, there are implications relating to the statute of limitations as to when an action can be brought. To avoid the risk of being outside of any statutory time-limits, it is important that if you believe you have suffered injury or illness due to exposure to asbestos, or to some other form of damaging substance, to seek advice on your legal rights immediately.

If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us