Exhibit 99.5

KPMG
cutting through complexity
Valuation of Asbestos-Related
Disease Liabilities of former James
Hardie entities (“the Liable Entities”)
to be met by the AICF Trust
Prepared for Asbestos Injuries
Compensation Fund Limited
(“AICFL”)
As at 31 March 2015
21 May 2015

				KPMG Actuarial Pty Ltd				ABN: 91 144 686 046
				Australian Financial Services Licence No. 392050				Telephone: +61 2 9335 7000
				10 Shelley Street				Facsimile: +61 2 9335 7001
				Sydney NSW 2000				DX: 1056 Sydney
								www.kpmg.com.au
				PO Box H67
				Australia Square NSW 1215
				Australia

21 May 2015

Narreda Grimley

General Manager

Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund Limited

Suite 1, Level 6, 56 Clarence Street

Sydney NSW 2000

Paul Miller, General Counsel, Department of Premier and Cabinet, The State of New South Wales

The Board of Directors, Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund Limited

Dear Narreda

VALUATION OF ASBESTOS-RELATED DISEASE LIABILITIES OF FORMER JAMES HARDIE ENTITIES (“THE LIABLE ENTITIES”) TO BE MET BY THE AICF TRUST

We are pleased to provide you with our Annual Actuarial Report relating to the asbestos-related disease liabilities of the Liable Entities which are to be met by the AICF Trust.

The report is effective as at 31 March 2015 and has taken into account claims data and information provided to us by AICFL as at 31 March 2015.

If you have any questions with respect to the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely

© 2015 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of

independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG

International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Australia. KPMG and the

KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Table of Contents

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Tables

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease
		liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust
		Effective as at 31 March 2015
		21 May 2015

Executive Summary

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease
		liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust
		Effective as at 31 March 2015
		21 May 2015

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Introduction

The Amended Final Funding Agreement requires the completion of an Annual Actuarial Report evaluating the potential asbestos-related disease liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust. KPMG Actuarial has been retained by AICFL to provide this Annual Actuarial Report as required under the Amended Final Funding Agreement and this is detailed in our Engagement Letter dated 13 November 2014.

The Liable Entities are defined as being the following entities:

In addition, the liability for Baryulgil claims is deemed to be a liability of Amaca by virtue of the James Hardie (Civil Liability) Act 2005 (NSW). Under Part 4 of that Act, Amaca is liable for the “Marlew Asbestos Claims” or “Marlew Contribution Claims” as defined in that Act.

Our valuation is on a central estimate basis and is intended to be effective as at 31 March 2015. It has been based on claims data and information as at 31 March 2015 provided to us by AICFL.

Overview of Recent Claims Experience and comparison with previous valuation projections

In this section we compare the actual experience in 2014/15 (referred to in the following tables as “FY15 Actual”) with the projections for 2014/15 that were contained within our previous valuation report at 31 March 2014. We will refer to these projections for 2014/15 as “FY15 Expected” in the tables that follow.

Claim numbers

There have been 412 mesothelioma claims reported in 2014/15, an 11% increase on the 370 mesothelioma claims reported in 2013/14.

For non-mesothelioma claims (excluding workers compensation claims), there have been 219 claims reported in 2014/15 compared to 207 claims reported in 2013/14. There has been greater variation within the individual disease types.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

The following table shows the comparison of actual experience with that which had been forecast at the previous valuation.

Table E.1. Comparison of claim numbers

Average Claim Awards

Average claims awards in 2014/15 have been lower than expectations across all disease types.

There have been seven large mesothelioma claim settlements (being claims in excess of $1m in 2006/07 money terms) in 2014/15, which is lower than our expectations. Total claims expenditure on large claims has been 29% below expectations, reflecting both a lower frequency and a lower average cost than expected.

The following table shows the comparison of actual experience with that which had been forecast at the previous valuation.

Table E.2. Comparison of average claim size of non-nil claims

Note: FY14 Actual values are expressed in 2013/14 money terms. FY15 Actual values and FY15 Expected values are expressed in 2014/15 money terms.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Cashflow expenditure: gross and net

Gross cashflow expenditure, at $154.3m, was 4% above expectations.

Net cashflow expenditure, at $121.1m, was 6% below expectations.

Table E.3. Comparison of cashflow

Insurance and Other Recoveries have been considerably higher than expected. However, this is entirely due to proceeds from insurance collections from HIH and associated entities as a result of successful applications of Section 562A(4).

The following chart shows the composition of the gross cashflow between current and prior years’ reported claims.

Figure E.1. Composition of gross cashflow between current and prior years’ reported claims

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Payments in relation to claims reported in the financial year have shown a further increase compared with the previous year. This is predominantly due to the higher number of mesothelioma claims reported in the year and which have been settled in the year.

Payments in relation to prior years’ reported claims have been relatively stable in the most recent three years.

Liability Assessment

At 31 March 2015, our projected central estimate of the liabilities of the Liable Entities (the Discounted Central Estimate) to be met by the AICF Trust is $2,142.8m (March 2014: $1,870.2m).

We have not allowed for the future Operating Expenses of the AICF Trust or the Liable Entities in the liability assessment.

Table E.4. Comparison of central estimate of liabilities

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Comparison with previous valuation

In the absence of any change to the claim projection assumptions from our 31 March 2014 valuation, other than allowing for the changes in the discount rate, we would have projected a Discounted Central Estimate liability of $2,075.0m as at 31 March 2015, i.e. an increase of $204.8m from our 31 March 2014 valuation result.

This increase of $204.8m is due to:

Our liability assessment at 31 March 2015 of $2,142.8m therefore represents an increase of $67.8m, which arises from changes to the claim projection assumptions.

The increase of $67.8m is principally a consequence of:

offset by

The following chart shows an analysis of the change in our liability assessments from 31 March 2014 to 31 March 2015.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Figure E.2. Analysis of change in central estimate liability (discounted basis)

Note: Green bars signal that this factor has given rise to an increase in the liability whilst light blue bars signal that this factor has given rise to a reduction in the liability.

The undiscounted liability as of 31 March 2015 has increased from $2,677m (based on the 31 March 2014 valuation) to $2,743m. This represents an increase of $66m.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Amended Final Funding Agreement calculations

The Amended Final Funding Agreement sets out the basis on which payments will be made to the AICF Trust.

Additionally, there are a number of other figures specified within the Amended Final Funding Agreement that we are required to calculate. These are:

Table E.5. Amended Final Funding Agreement calculations

The actual funding amount due at a particular date will depend upon a number of factors, including:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Uncertainty

Estimates of asbestos-related disease liabilities are subject to considerable uncertainty, significantly more than personal injury liabilities in relation to other causes, such as CTP or Workers Compensation claims.

It should therefore be expected that the actual emergence of the liabilities will vary from any estimate. As indicated in Figure E.3, depending on the actual out-turn of experience relative to that currently forecast, the variation could potentially be substantial.

Thus, no assurance can be given that the actual liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust will not ultimately exceed the estimates contained in this Report. Any such variation may be significant.

The uncertainties prevailing at this year-end (and at the previous year-end) are higher than historically observed. This is a consequence of the higher than expected level of mesothelioma claims reporting and the uncertainty this brings in relation to the projection of the future number of mesothelioma claims to be received.

We have performed sensitivity testing to identify the impact of different assumptions upon the size of the liabilities. The different scenarios selected are documented at Section 11.2 of this report.

We have not included a sensitivity test for the impact of changes in discount rates although, as noted in this Report, changes in discount rates can introduce significant volatility to the Discounted Central Estimate result reported at each year-end.

We note that these sensitivity test ranges are not intended to correspond to a specified probability of sufficiency, nor are they intended to indicate an upper bound or a lower bound of all possible outcomes.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Figure E.3. Sensitivity testing results – Impact around the Discounted Central Estimate (in $m)

The single most sensitive assumption shown in the chart is the timing of the peak period of claims reporting against the Liable Entities. Shifting the assumed period of peak claims reporting by a further 2 years for mesothelioma (i.e. assuming that claim reporting begins to reduce after 2018/19) together with increased claims reporting from 2026/27 onwards could add a further $555m (26%) on a discounted basis (as shown in the above chart by the scenario labelled “mesothelioma incidence pattern (2)”).

Table E.6. Summary results of sensitivity analysis ($m)

Whilst the table above indicates a range around the discounted central estimate of liabilities of -$632m to +$1,454m, the actual cost of liabilities could fall outside that range depending on the actual experience.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Data, Reliances and Limitations

We have been provided with the following data by AICFL:

While we have tested the consistency of the various data sets provided, we have not otherwise verified the data nor have we undertaken any auditing of the data at source. We have relied on the data provided as being complete and accurate in all material respects. Consequently, should there be material errors or incompleteness in the data, our assessment could be affected materially.

Executive Summary Not Report

Please note that this executive summary is intended as a brief overview of our Report. To properly understand our analysis and the basis of our liability assessment requires examination of our Report in full.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

The Amended Final Funding Agreement requires the completion of an Annual Actuarial Report evaluating the potential asbestos-related disease liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust.

The Liable Entities are defined as being the following entities:

In addition, the liability for Baryulgil claims is deemed to be a liability of Amaca by virtue of the James Hardie (Civil Liability) Act 2005 (NSW). Under Part 4 of that Act, Amaca is liable for “Marlew Asbestos Claims” or “Marlew Contribution Claims” as defined in that Act.

Under the Amended Final Funding Agreement, the liabilities to be met by the AICF Trust relate to personal asbestos-related disease liabilities of the Liable Entities.

Such claims must relate to exposure which took place in Australia and which have been brought in a Court in Australia.

The precise scope of the liabilities is documented in Section 1.2 and in Appendix F of this Report.

KPMG Actuarial has been retained by AICFL to provide an Annual Actuarial Report as required under the Amended Final Funding Agreement and this is detailed in our Engagement Letter dated 13 November 2014.

The prior written consent of KPMG Actuarial is required for any other use of this Report or the information contained in it.

Our valuation is effective as at 31 March 2015 and has been based on claims data and information as at 31 March 2015 provided to us by AICFL.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We have been requested to provide an actuarial assessment as at 31 March 2015 of the asbestos-related disease liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust, consistent with the terms of the Amended Final Funding Agreement.

The assessment is on a central estimate basis and is based on the claims experience as at 31 March 2015.

A “central estimate” liability assessment is an estimate of the expected value of the range of potential future liability outcomes. In other words, if all the possible values of the liabilities are expressed as a statistical distribution, the central estimate is an estimate of the mean of that distribution.

It is of note that our liability assessment:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Readers of this Report may refer to our previous reports which are available at www.ir.jameshardie.com.au and www.aicf.org.au.

Workers Compensation claims are claims made by former employees of the Liable Entities. Such past, current and future reported claims were insured with, amongst others, Allianz Australia Limited, QBE and the various State-based Workers Compensation Schemes.

Under the Amended Final Funding Agreement, the part of a future Workers Compensation claim that is met by a Workers Compensation Scheme or Policy of the Liable Entities is outside of the AICF Trust. The AICF Trust is, however, to provide for any part of a claim not covered by a Workers Compensation Scheme or Policy (e.g. as a result of the existence of limits of indemnity and policy deductibles on those policies of insurance).

On this basis our liability assessment in relation to Workers Compensation claims and which relates to the AICF Trust, includes only the amount borne by the Liable Entities in excess of the anticipated recoveries due from a Workers Compensation Scheme or Policy.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

In making our assessment we have assumed that the Workers Compensation insurance programme will continue to respond to claims by former employees of the Liable Entities as and when they fall due. To the extent that they were not to respond owing to (say) insurer insolvency, Insurer Guarantee Funds may be available to meet such obligations.

There exists a right under Section 8E (Reimbursement Provisions) of the Dust Diseases Act 1942 for the NSW Dust Diseases Board (“DDB”) to recover certain costs from common law defendants, excluding the employer of the claimant.

This component of cost is implicitly included within our liability assessment as the claims awards made in recent periods and in recent settlements contain allowance for DDB reimbursement where applicable. Furthermore, currently reported open claims have an allowance within their case estimates for the costs of DDB reimbursement where relevant and applicable.

The Amended Final Funding Agreement indicates that the AICF Trust is intended to meet Personal Asbestos Claims and that claims by the DDB or a Workers Compensation Scheme for reimbursement will only be met up to a certain specified limit (aggregated across the DDB and Workers Compensation Schemes), being:

The cashflow and liability figures contained within this Report have already removed that component of any reimbursements that will not be met by the AICF Trust owing to the application of these limits and caps.

“Marlew Asbestos Claims” and “Marlew Contribution Claims” are deemed to be liabilities of Amaca. These claims specifically include:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

These claims are discussed further in Section 5.7.

Australian-licensed insurance companies are required to hold, and many non-insurance companies elect to hold, insurance and self-insurance claims provisions at a level above the central estimate basis to reflect the uncertainty attaching to the liability assessment and to include an allowance in respect of that uncertainty.

A risk margin is an additional amount held, above the central estimate, so as to increase the likelihood of adequacy of the provisions to meet the ultimate cost of settlement of those liabilities.

We note that the Amended Final Funding Agreement envisages the ongoing financing of the AICF Trust is to be based on a “central estimate” approach and that the Annual Actuarial Report should provide a Discounted Central Estimate valuation.

Accordingly, we have made no allowance for any risk margins within this Report.

We have determined a Discounted Central Estimate in this Report by discounting (to 31 March 2015) the projected future cashflows using yields on Commonwealth Government Bonds.

Conceptually, the Discounted Central Estimate at 31 March 2015 would normally represent an amount of money which, if fully provided in advance (i.e. as of 31 March 2015) and invested in risk-free assets (such as Commonwealth Government Bonds) of term and currency appropriate to the liabilities, would generate the necessary investment income such that (together with the capital value of those assets) it would be expected to be sufficient to pay for the liabilities as they fall due.

To the extent that the actual investments are:

investment profits or losses would emerge.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

One of the uncertainties in our valuation is the fact that fixed interest Commonwealth Government Bonds do not exist at most of the durations of our cashflow projection.

At 31 March 2015, there were 21 fixed interest Commonwealth Government Bonds on issue (with a face value of approximately $330bn), with 7 of them having maturity dates after 31 March 2025 (with a face value of $77bn). At 31 March 2015, the longest-dated maturity was April 2037.

This means we need to take a long-term view on bond yields that is not measured by market-observable rates of return.

We continue to note that the actual funding mechanism under the Amended Final Funding Agreement only provides for up to three years’ worth of projected Claims and Claims Legal Costs expenditure and one year’s worth of Operating Expenses at any one time.

As identified in Section 1.2, there are other potential sources of claims exposure beyond those directly considered within this Report. However, in a number of cases they are unquantifiable even if they have the potential to generate claims. This is especially the case for those sources of future claim where there has been no evidence of claims to date.

Areas of potential changes in claims exposure we have not explicitly allowed for in our valuation include, but are not limited to:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Nonetheless, implicit allowance is made in respect of some of these items in the allowance for superimposed inflation included in our liability assessment. Furthermore, to the extent that some of these have emerged in past claims experience, they are reflected in our projections.

We have made no allowance for the risk of further development in relation to New Zealand exposures and the rights of claims from New Zealand claimants in Australian courts (as per Frost vs. Amaca Pty Ltd (2005), NSWDDT 36 although this decision was successfully appealed by Amaca in August 2006) nor for the risk of additional exposures from overseas. This is because, as noted in Section 1.2, the AICF Trust is not required to meet the cost of these claims as they are Excluded Claims.

In relation to claimants where exposures have involved more than one country (e.g. UK and Australia), we have assumed that the AICF Trust will only meet that part of the cost which is attributable to the Australian-related exposure.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We have made allowance for so-called “third-wave” claims. These are defined as claims for personal injury and / or death arising from asbestos exposure during home renovations by individuals or to builders involved in such renovations. Such claims are allowed for within the projections to the extent to which they have arisen to date and to the extent our exposure model factors in these exposures in its projection.

We have not allowed for a significant additional surge in third-wave claims (over and above current levels of activity) in the future arising from renovations, but conversely we have not allowed for a tempering of those third-wave claims already included within our projection as a result of improved education of individuals as to the risks of such home renovations, or of any local Councils or State Governments passing laws in this regard.

It should be noted that claims for the cost of asbestos or asbestos product removal from homes and properties or any claims for economic loss arising from asbestos or asbestos products being within such homes and properties is not required to be met by the AICF Trust.

KPMG Actuarial has relied upon the accuracy and completeness of the data with which it has been provided. KPMG Actuarial has not verified the accuracy or completeness of the data, although we have undertaken steps to test its consistency with data previously received. However, KPMG Actuarial has placed reliance on the data previously received, and currently provided, as being accurate and complete in all material respects.

It must be understood that estimates of asbestos-related disease liabilities are subject to considerable uncertainty.

This is due to the fact that the ultimate disposition of future claims will be subject to the outcome of events that have not yet occurred. Examples of these events, as noted in Section 1.3, include jury decisions, court interpretations, legislative changes, epidemiological developments, medical advancements, public attitudes, potential additional third-wave exposures and social and economic conditions such as inflation.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Therefore, it should be expected that the actual emergence of the liabilities will vary, perhaps materially, from any estimate. Thus, no assurance can be given that the actual liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust will not ultimately exceed the estimates contained herein. Any such variation may be significant.

The purpose of this Report is as stated in Section 1.1.

This Report should not be used for any purpose other than those specified.

This Report will be provided to the Board and management of AICFL. This Report will also be provided to the Board and management of James Hardie, the NSW Government and to Ernst & Young in their capacity as auditors to both James Hardie and AICFL.

We understand that this Report will be filed with the ASX and placed on James Hardie’s website in its entirety.

We understand that this Report will also be placed on AICFL’s website in its entirety.

KPMG Actuarial consents to this Report being made available to the above-mentioned parties and for the Report to be distributed in the manner described above.

To the extent permitted by law, neither KPMG Actuarial nor its Executives, directors or employees will be responsible to any third parties for the consequences of any actions they take based upon the opinions expressed with this Report, including any use of or purported reliance upon this Report not contemplated in Section 1.2. Any reliance placed is that party’s sole responsibility.

Where distribution of this Report is permitted by KPMG Actuarial, the Report may only be distributed in its entirety and judgements about the conclusions and comments drawn from this Report should only be made after considering the Report in its entirety and with necessary consultation with KPMG Actuarial.

Readers are also advised to refer to the “Important Note: Basis of Report” section at the front of the Executive Summary of this Report.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

In our analyses throughout this Report (unless otherwise stated), the “year” we refer to aligns with the financial year of AICFL and James Hardie and runs from 1 April to 31 March.

A “2008” notified claim would be a claim notified in the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009. This might also be referred to as “2008/09” or “FY09”.

Similarly, a “2014” claim settlement would be a claim settled in the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. This might also be referred to as “2014/15” or “FY15”.

This Report is authored by Neil Donlevy, an Executive of KPMG Actuarial Pty Ltd, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries (London) and a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia.

This Report is co-authored by Jefferson Gibbs, an Executive of KPMG Actuarial Pty Ltd, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries (London) and a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia.

In relation to this Report, the primary regulator for both Neil Donlevy and Jefferson Gibbs is the Institute of Actuaries of Australia.

This Report details a valuation of the outstanding claims liabilities of entities which hold liabilities with features similar to general insurance liabilities as self-insured entities, and which have purchased related insurance protection.

In preparing this Report, we have complied with the Professional Standard 300 of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia (“PS300”), “Valuation of General Insurance Claims”.

However, as we note in Section 1.2, this Report does not include an allowance for the future Operating Expenses of the AICF Trust (which are estimated by AICFL) and nor does it include any allowance for a risk margin to reflect the inherent uncertainty in the liability assessment.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

This valuation report and the underlying analyses have been subject to technical review and internal peer review.

The technical review focuses on ensuring that the valuation models and supporting claims experience analyses that are carried out are performed correctly and that the calculations are being correctly applied. The technical review also focuses on ensuring that the data that is being used has been reconciled insofar as possible.

Internal peer review involves a review of the approach, the methods, the assumptions selected and the professional judgments applied.

Both the technical review and internal peer review processes are applied to the Report as well as the valuation models.

This Report does not analyse nor provide any opinion on the current, or prospective, funding position of the AICF Trust, nor of its likely funding needs and its potential use of the loan facility provided by the NSW Government.

This is because to do so within this Report would require consideration, estimation and documentation of the future financial performance of James Hardie.

This Report only provides analysis and opinion on the estimates of the future expenditure to be met by the AICF Trust.

The cashflow estimates contained in this Report assume that all claims against the Liable Entities will continue to be paid in full as and when they fall due.

We have been advised by the management of AICFL to prepare the Report on a “going concern” basis (i.e. we should assume that AICFL will be able to meet the cost of the liabilities of the Liable Entities as they fall due).

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We have been provided with the following data by AICFL:

We have allowed for the benefits of the product and public liability insurance policies of the Liable Entities based on information provided to us by AICFL relating to the insurance programme’s structure, coverage and layers.

We have also considered the claims data listings which formed the basis of our previous valuation assessments.

The data structures for the claims and accounting databases provided to us by AICFL as of 31 March 2015 are detailed in Appendix E.

We have tested the consistency of the various data sets provided to us at different valuation dates. Section 2.3 outlines the nature of the testing undertaken.

However, we have not otherwise verified the data and have instead relied on the data provided as being complete and accurate in all material respects.

We have relied upon the robustness of AICFL’s internal administration and systems as to the completeness of the data provided.

Consequently, should there be material errors or incompleteness in the data, our assessment could also be affected materially.

We have performed a reconciliation of the data provided at 31 March 2015 with the data provided at 31 March 2014.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We have undertaken a number of tests and reconciliations to test the accuracy of the data to the extent possible, noting the limitations outlined above.

We have performed a reconciliation of the claims database as at 31 March 2015 with that provided at 31 March 2014. Our findings are:

Changing and developing data is not unexpected or to be considered as adverse. Indeed, changing data is common to all claims administration systems. We do not consider the number or extent of the changes noted above to be unreasonable.

The accounting database extract contains the following fields:

The claims database extract contains the following fields:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We then mapped the financial data between the two databases into standardised groupings as follows:

Table 2.1: Grouping of financial data from claims and accounting databases

Note: Recovery amounts are available from the accounting database

We have compared the payment records between the claims database and the accounting database from the earliest date to the current file position. Table 2.2 shows the results of this reconciliation for all claim transactions to date.

Table 2.2: Comparison of amounts from claims and accounting databases ($m)

The standardisation is the most relevant comparison because, as noted earlier, the two database extracts allocate the information (particularly in relation to Medicare) in slightly different ways.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Once the standardisation has been undertaken, the two datasets reconcile closely – with reconciliation differences totalling approximately $8.3m or 0.6% (31 March 2014: $7.3m).

Our approach for each claim record has been to take the maximum value of the two databases for each claim record. This results in the following overall totals being used in our analysis:

This approach, of taking the maximum value for each claims record, may result in some minor prudence in our overall analysis although the amount of prudence is not considered to be significant in the context of the size of the potential liabilities and the underlying uncertainty in any valuation estimating future claims costs over the next 40 years or more.

We have not verified the underlying data nor have we undertaken “auditing at source”. No material data issues have been identified and notified to us by the Approved Auditor of AICFL (Ernst & Young) during their testing.

We have tested the data for internal consistency with the data provided at the previous valuation (31 March 2014).

Based on that testing and reconciliation, and subject to the limitations described in Section 1.4, we have formed the view that:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We have, in broad terms, maintained the core valuation methodology adopted at our previous valuation at 31 March 2014.

The methodology involves assessing the liabilities in two separate components, being:

For pending claims, we have used the case estimates (where available) with some adjustments to reflect the extent to which the case estimates (on average) tend to overstate the ultimate cost. For IBNR claims we have used what can best be described as an “average cost per claim method”.

In brief, the overall methodology may be summarised as follows:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

It should be noted that this description is an outline and is not intended to be exhaustive in consideration of all the stages we consider or all investigations we undertake. Those other stages are outlined in more detail elsewhere in this Report and readers are advised to refer to those sections for a more detailed understanding of the process undertaken.

As discussed elsewhere, the liabilities are established on a central estimate basis.

We have excluded cross-claims brought by the Liable Entities against other defendants. Where the cross-claim is brought as part of the main proceedings the claim is automatically counted in our analysis of the number of claims. However, where the cross-claim by the Liable Entities is severed from the main proceedings, the existence of a separate record in the claims dataset does not indicate an additional claim (or liability against the Liable Entities). In these circumstances such claims records are not counted in our analysis.

We have also excluded “insurance recovery” claims records. This is because the insurance recovery record is a separate record that exists for claims records where an insurance recovery is due. In other words, the claim against the Liable Entity has already been included in our analysis and the insurance recovery record exists for operational purposes only. We have, however, made separate, explicit allowance in the valuation for future insurance recoveries.

We have sub-divided the remaining claims into the following groups:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We have separated the Workers Compensation claims from product and public liability claims because claim payments from Workers Compensation claims do not generate recoveries under the product and public liability insurance cover, so that in order to value those insurance policies we need to separately identify the cashflows from product and public liability claims and the cashflows from Workers Compensation claims.

We have separated out wharfside workers claims because such claims are likely to have a different exposure and incidence profile compared with product and public liability claims.

For product and public liability claims, we have separately analysed the individual disease types.

We have split the data by disease type because there is sufficient volume of claims to do so, because different disease types display substantially different average claim sizes, and because the incidence pattern of future notifications is expected to vary between the different disease types.

We have not divided the Workers Compensation or wharf claims data by disease type, given their relatively low financial significance and the reduced credibility of the data if sub-divided by disease type (given the low numbers of claims reported).

For the purposes of our analysis, we have allocated each claim once and therefore to one disease only. We have selected the following order of priority, based on the relative severity of the disease:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

This means that if a product or public liability claim has mesothelioma as one of its listed diseases, it is automatically included as a mesothelioma claim. If a product or public liability claim has lung cancer or other cancer as one of its listed diseases (but not mesothelioma), it is included as a lung cancer claim. If a product or public liability claim has asbestosis as one of its listed diseases, it is only coded as asbestosis if it has no reference to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other cancer as one of its diseases.

To project the pattern of incidence of claims against the Liable Entities, we have constructed a model which utilises the following inputs:

Statistically speaking, the projected peak incidence of mesothelioma is not equal to the peak year of production (or consumption) plus the average latency of mesothelioma.

Instead, the projected peak of claims reporting derived from our model is a function of the overall shape of the exposure and the full distribution of the latency period. In statistical terminology, the projected claims incidence curve is a “convolution” of the statistical distribution of “modelled consumption” and the statistical distribution of the latency period.

Furthermore, the notification pattern will not be symmetrically distributed around the peak year. The notification pattern is derived from the combined impact of the exposure model and the latency model. The exposure model is not a symmetrical distribution; whereas the assumed latency model is a symmetrical distribution.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

The following chart shows the timeline of exposure, latency, diagnosis and claims reporting.

Figure 3.1: Illustration of timeline of exposure, latency and claim reporting (example shown is for mesothelioma)

We have constructed a proxy for an “exposure model” by reference to statistics showing the levels of Australian usage of asbestos.

We do not have detailed individual exposure information for the Liable Entities, its products or where the products were used and how many people were exposed to those products. However, given the market share of James Hardie over the years (through to 1987) and its relative stability, we have used a national pattern of usage as a reasonable proxy for the Liable Entities’ exposure.

We start by constructing an exposure index from the annual consumption of asbestos within Australia from 1900-2002. We split this between the various asbestos types and by year of consumption.

We have not allowed for multiple exposures with respect to the Liable Entities from each unit of asbestos consumed, e.g. where the Liable Entities were both mining and milling the same asbestos. While there was some (moderate) mining at Baryulgil, in relative terms it is not significant. In any event, we have made separate explicit allowance for mining activities at Baryulgil within our liability assessment.

Figure 3.2 shows measures of the production and consumption of asbestos in Australia in the period 1930 to 2002.

It can be seen that the exposure, being measured in net consumption, appeared to peak in the early-1970s to mid-1970s. It can also be seen that for Australia as a whole, asbestos consumption continued at significant levels until the mid- 1980s and then began to fall through to 2002.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Figure 3.2: Consumption and production indices – Australia 1930-2002

Source: World Mineral Statistics Dataset, British Geological Survey, www.mineralsuk.com

R Virta, USGS Website Annual Yearbook

The data underlying this chart is shown in Appendix D.

The “modelled consumption” is derived as the consumption averaged over the previous eight years, i.e. from the implied start date of exposure to the average date of exposure.

This selection of eight years is based on the analysis contained in Section 6.1 which shows that a typical claimant has an average exposure period of 16 years and that the average date of exposure is therefore typically eight years after the start date of exposure.

It is the “modelled consumption” which is used, together with an assumption about the statistical distribution of the latency period, as a basis for projecting future mesothelioma claim numbers.

There is an implicit assumption within the use of the “modelled consumption” to derive the level of future claim notifications that:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Our assumption is that the latency pattern (from the average date of exposure) for all disease types is statistically distributed with a normal distribution.

The parameters (i.e. the mean and standard deviation) of the distribution have been set by reference to previous work undertaken by Professor Berry et al¹, by Jim Leigh et al² and by Yeung et al³.

The parameters for the mean and, in particular, for the standard deviation have also been set taking into account the claims experience of the Liable Entities to date.

The parameters vary by disease type.

The analysis supporting the selection of these parameters is summarised in Section 6.2.

Our methodology is to take each year of exposure, using “modelled consumption” of asbestos in tonnage for that year, and project an index of the number of claims we project to emerge in each future reporting year resulting from that exposure year.

The latency period is assumed to be normally distributed with a mean and a standard deviation which vary by disease type.

This means that for any given exposure year, the peak incidence of reporting claims would be (in the case of mesothelioma) 35 years after the average exposure date from that exposure year.

We then aggregate the claims notification index curves projected for each exposure year to produce an overall curve which shows the index of claim notifications arising from all exposure periods.

¹ Malignant pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma in former miners and millers of crocidolite at Wittenoom, Western Australia; G Berry, N H de Klerk et al (2004)

² Malignant Mesothelioma in Australia: 1945-2000; J Leigh et al (2002)

³ Distribution of Mesothelioma Cases in Different Occupational Groups and Industries, 1979-1995: P Yeung, A Rogers, A Johnson (1999)

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

The curve is described as an index because consumption is used as a proxy measure for the number of individuals exposed and because we don’t know what proportion of those people who were exposed will develop asbestos-related diseases.

Therefore the methodology produces a shape of the number of claims, rather than an absolute level of the number of claims to be reported.

This methodology provides not only the shape of claims reporting as an index but it also projects the implied peak year(s) of incidence for each disease type and the rate of decay in claims reporting levels after the peak year of incidence.

We allow for each of the diseases having different average latency periods. This results in different projected peak years for the different diseases.

These are summarised in Sections 6.2 and 6.3.

We take the claim curve index and then calibrate the number of notifications in each future year by reference to the recent levels of claims reporting and the number of claims we have assumed for the 2015/16 financial year.

This approach implicitly assumes that:

Changes to any of these factors over time will result in changes to the actual pattern of incidence of claims reporting compared with that derived in Section 3.4.3.

Our assumptions for the base number of claims projected to be reported in 2015/16 are summarised in Sections 4.4 and 5.6.

As a consequence of heightened mesothelioma claims reporting observed in 2013/14 (and which has continued in 2014/15), we made some modifications to the future incidence pattern for mesothelioma in our 31 March 2014 valuation.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

The changes were most pronounced for the period of claims reporting to 2016/17 and the changes are documented more extensively in our Annual Actuarial Report effective at 31 March 2014.

At this valuation, we have maintained those modifications to the incidence pattern.

We derive a settlement pattern by analysing triangulations of the numbers of settlements and claims payments by delay from the year of notification.

From these settlement pattern analyses, we have estimated the pace at which claims notified in the future will settle, and used this to project the future number, and monetary amount, of settlements in each financial year for each disease type.

Our analysis and assumptions selected are summarised in Section 9.6.

We define a large claim as one for which the award is greater than or equal to $1m in 2006/07 money terms (which equates to approximately $1.37m in mid 2014/15 money terms).

We define an attritional claim as a non-nil, non-large claim. We define a nil claim as one for which the award payable by the relevant Liable Entity is zero.

We have estimated the following five components to the average cost assessment:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

All of our analyses have been constructed using past average awards, which have been inflated to mid 2014/15 money terms using a historical base inflation index (of 4% per annum). This allows for basic inflation effects when identifying trends in historical average settlements. We then determine a prospective average cost in mid 2014/15 money terms.

We perform the same analysis for the defence legal costs for nil and non-nil claims and for plaintiff legal / other costs in respect of non-nil claims (together “Claims Legal Costs”).

Our analysis and assumptions are summarised in Section 7.

We analyse the historical incidence rate of large claims (being measured as the ratio of the number of large claims to the total number of non-nil claims), and the average claim size and legal costs of these claims. We have determined a prospective incidence rate and an average cost in mid 2014/15 money terms to arrive at a “per claim” loading (being the average large claim cost multiplied by the large claim incidence rate per claim) being the additional amount we need to add to our attritional average claim size to allow for large claims.

Our analysis and assumptions are summarised in Section 7.8.

Allowance for future claim cost inflation is made. This is modelled as a combination of base inflation plus superimposed inflation. This enables us to project future average settlement costs in each future year, which can then be applied to the IBNR claims numbers as they settle in each future year.

Our analysis and assumptions in relation to claims inflation are summarised in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.

We apply a “nil settlement rate” to the overall number of settlements to estimate the number of claims which will be settled for nil claim cost (i.e. other than in relation to defence legal costs) and those which will be settled for a non-nil claim cost.

The prospective nil settlement rate is estimated by reference to the analysis of past trends in the rate of nil settlements.

Our analysis and assumptions selected are summarised in Section 8.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

At 31 March 2015, there were 534 claims (31 March 2014: 506) for which claim awards have not yet been fully settled by the Liable Entities.

Additionally, there are a number of other claims for which defence legal costs have not yet been settled, even though the awards have been settled.

There has been an increase in the number of pending mesothelioma claims during 2014/15 (an increase of 22 claims). This is a result of the higher claims reporting that has been experienced in the year and it reflects the time delay that naturally exists between notification and settlement.

We have adopted three definitions of settlement status:

The excess amount of the liability for pending claims, over the case estimates held, is what the insurance industry terms Incurred But Not Enough Reported (“IBNER”).

Depending on the case estimation procedure of a company and the nature of the liabilities, IBNER can be either positive or negative, with a negative IBNER implying that the ultimate cost of settling claims will be less than case estimates, i.e. that there is some degree of redundancy in case estimates.

Our analysis has indicated that there is a degree of redundancy in case estimates, i.e. a negative IBNER.

The comparison of current case estimates with actuarially-projected future settlement costs for claims reported to date suggests that potential savings from case estimates in relation to the award component could be of the order of 25%.

AICFL’s own analysis also suggests that historically there have also been savings which have typically varied between 20% and 30%.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Furthermore, we have assessed whether the cost of claims reported up to and including 31 March 2015 has deteriorated (or improved) compared to our prior estimate (as at 31 March 2014).

The table below shows that there has been no deterioration compared to the estimates we previously adopted and are currently adopting (both of which have already made allowance for a 25% saving on case estimates). This analysis lends further support to the view that the allowance we have made for the extent of redundancy in case estimates of 25% is reasonable and is borne out by the actual experience.

We have maintained our assumption for the level of redundancy in case estimates on currently reported claims at 25% at this valuation (March 2014: 25%). This assumption is only applied to the case estimates for the claim award, i.e. it is not applied to plaintiff/other costs or defence costs.

Table 3.1: Change in cost of claims during 2014/15 financial year ($m) – claim award component only

The table above shows that there has been a $10.3m saving in the case estimates for claims that were reported prior to 31 March 2014.

It should be noted that making allowance for savings from case estimates is expected to have a more significant impact on the near term cash flows and a lesser impact on the longer-term cashflows, with more than 95% of the cost of pending claims expected to be settled within the next six years.

Insurance Recoveries are defined as proceeds which are estimated to be recoverable under the product and public liability insurance policies of the Liable Entities, and therefore exclude any such proceeds from a Workers Compensation Scheme or Policy in which the Liable Entities participate or which the Liable Entities hold.

In applying the insurance programme we consider only the projected gross cashflows relating to product and public liability claims.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We split out product liability cashflows from public liability cashflows as they are covered by different sections of the insurance policy under different bases:

Historical analysis of the claims data suggests that more than 97% of all liability claims by cost have been product liability claims.

We make no allowance for the Workers Compensation cashflows in estimating the Insurance Recoveries, as the insurance programme only provides insurance cover to product and public liability exposures.

Until 31 March 1985, the Liable Entities had in place General and Products liability insurance policies with a $1m primary policy layer.

In addition, until 31 May 1986, the Liable Entities maintained further excess “umbrella” insurance policies, with varying retentions and policy limits. That is, the insurance policies paid all costs arising from claims with exposure in a specified year from the retention up to the relevant policy limit. All claim costs in relation to a given exposure year in excess of the limit would be retained by the Liable Entities.

Product liability claims were insured under these insurance policies on an “in the aggregate” basis whilst public liability claims were insured on an “each and every loss” basis.

These insurance policies were placed amongst a number of insurance providers on a claims occurring basis.

From 31 May 1986, the insurance policies were placed on a claims made basis in relation to asbestos-related product and public liability cover.

In summary, the insurance policies were placed as follows:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Our methodology for projecting the future insurance recoveries to be collected by AICFL involves the following steps:

This method allows us to:

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

We then make an additional adjustment to the projected recoveries to exclude those projected future insurance recoveries that are assigned to the participations of insurers who have already commuted their coverage with AICFL and the Liable Entities or insurers who have settled the coverage by way of a Scheme of Arrangement.

Commutations have been entered into by AICFL, but these commutations have involved the payment of a lump sum amount, rather than an annual cashflow amount paid over a period of time. In these circumstances, we have assumed that the insurance liabilities of that company to the Liable Entities have been fully discharged and no further recoveries will fall due.

We have assumed that all monies have been paid in relation to insurance recoveries for the claims occurring period from HIH. AICFL has collected more than $50m from HIH since 2007 by way of successful Section 562A(4) applications. Any future proceeds from HIH are not expected to be material.

We have made no allowance or adjustment for any future commutations.

For the claims occurring period, where a claim filed against a company under a Scheme of Arrangement has been accepted and payment made, we have assumed that the insurance liabilities of that company to the Liable Entities have been fully discharged and no further recoveries fall due.

We have not included within our liability estimate any allowance for insurance recoveries under the claims occurring period that are due but have not yet been collected (“unpaid balances”). We are advised that such monies amount to approximately $4m at 31 March 2015.

These amounts are more appropriately dealt with as being debtors of AICFL.

Insurance protection purchased from 31 May 1986 onwards was placed on a “claims made” basis and as such may not provide protection or recoveries against the cost of future claim notifications made by claimants against the Liable Entities.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

For the purpose of this Report, we have made no allowance for the value of insurance policies placed from 1986 onwards in our liability assessment.

We have made allowance for bad and doubtful debts on future Insurance Recoveries within our valuation by use of the default rates specified in Appendix A. These have been sourced from Standard & Poors’ 2013 Annual Global Corporate Default Study and Rating Transitions, March 2014 and they are based on bond default rates.

We have considered the credit rating of the insurers of the Liable Entities as at March 2015 and applied the relevant credit rating default rates to the expected future cashflows by year, treaty and insurer.

Where additional information regarding the expected payout rates of solvent and insolvent Schemes of Arrangement is available, we have instead taken the expected payout rates to assess the credit risk allowance to be made in our liability assessment.

A cross-claim can be brought by, or against, one or more Liable Entities. Cross-claims brought against a Liable Entity (“Contribution Claims”) are included in our analysis of the claims experience.

Cross-claims brought by a Liable Entity relate to circumstances where the Liable Entity seeks to join (as a cross-defendant) another party to the claim in which the Liable Entity is already joined.

To the extent that the Liable Entities are successful in joining such other parties to a claim, the contribution to the settlement by the Liable Entities will reduce accordingly.

Our approach in the valuation has been to separately value the rate of recovery (“cross-claims recovery rate”) as a percentage of the gross award based on historical experience of such recoveries.

Our analysis and assumptions selected are summarised in Section 9.5.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Cashflows are discounted on the basis of yields available at the valuation date on Commonwealth of Australia fixed interest Government Bonds (“Commonwealth Government Bonds”) of varying coupon rates and durations to maturity (matched to the liability cashflows), with a long-term discount rate of 6.00% per annum assumed.

It should be recognised that the yield curves and therefore the discount rates applied can vary considerably between valuations and can, and do, contribute significant volatility to the present value of the liability at different valuation dates.

At 31 March 2015, as compared with 31 March 2014, there have been significant decreases in observed yields on Commonwealth Government Bonds at most durations.

Our approach to the determination of the discount rates is unchanged from the approach adopted at 31 March 2014, and is:

Our selected assumptions are summarised in Section 9.4.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

Figure 4.1 shows the number of mesothelioma claims reported by year of notification.

Figure 4.1: Number of mesothelioma claims reported annually

Note: Throughout Sections 4 to 9, the date convention used in tables and charts is that (for example) 2008/09 indicates the financial year running from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009. Furthermore, unless clearly identifying a calendar year, the label “2008” in charts or tables would indicate the financial year running from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009.

The number of mesothelioma claim notifications increased steadily from 2000/01 (126 claims) to 2003/04 (189 claims). There was an upward step in claim numbers during 2004/05 with 265 claims reported.

In 2008/09, there were 305 claims reported.

The next three years saw lower (and relatively stable) claim numbers reported, with the number of claims varying between 259 and 270 claims.

In 2012/13, the number of claims reported increased to 309, largely reflecting increased numbers of cross-claims from other defendants.

In 2013/14, the number of claims reported increased significantly, to 370 claims, largely reflecting increased numbers of direct claims from claimants.

		Valuation of the asbestos-related disease   liabilities of the Liable Entities to be met by the AICF Trust   Effective as at 31 March 2015   21 May 2015

In 2014/15, the number of claims reported increased further to 412 claims.

In the remainder of this section, we have made a number of observations as to the potential drivers of the increase in claims reporting in 2014/15.

We have examined the number of mesothelioma claims reported on a monthly basis to better understand the nature of the claims experience observed on an annual basis.

Figure 4.2: Monthly notifications of mesothelioma claims

It is observed that: