College sued over school trip death
Parents suing over their son’s death on a NSW school trip claim the resulting nervous shock led to the loss of up to $300 million by companies selling new cleaning products.
In the NSW Supreme Court, Justice Clifton Hoeben concluded the secret formulas for the cleaning products should be revealed to those being sued over the death.
In October 1999, Nathan Chaina - who was a year 10 student at Sydney’s exclusive Scots College - drowned while on a hike at the school’s Glengarry campus in the NSW Kangaroo Valley.
His parents, George and Rita Chaina, and brothers Mathew and Jean-Pierre, are suing The Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust and 15 other defendants who were involved with the school or the camp at the relevant time.
They are all claiming damages for nervous shock resulting from Nathan’s death.
The parents are the directors and sole shareholders of two family companies - Proton Technology Pty Ltd and Deluxe Chemicals Pty Ltd - which also are suing over the death.
The defendants have admitted liability for the death, leaving the amount of compensation in issue.
“The company plaintiffs claim that because of the inability of the two parents as key employees to function effectively, the companies lost the opportunity to develop and market cleaning products,” the judge said.
They claim the products had “special” characteristics which would have made them successful in the industrial and domestic markets.
“The plaintiff companies say that by 23 October 1999 they had completed the development of these products and have suffered a loss of between $100 million and $300 million,” Justice Hoeben said.
After the companies initially refused, the defendants asked the judge to order them to provide the precise chemical formulas of the new and the reformulated products.
The companies raised the issue of confidentiality, instead offering to provide samples of 10 products which could be analysed by experts.
“This is a major piece of litigation involving enormous damages if the company plaintiffs make out their case,” Justice Hoeben said.
“Where unique and superior qualities are being asserted for a product, it seems reasonable to allow the opposing party to have access to the information which forms the basis for those qualities.”
Posted
on
Friday, April 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am under