Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing To Contract No IH00AAQS etc: [2012] HCA 56

The High Court has delivered judgment in Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing To Contract No Ih00aaqs V John Cross; Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing To Contract No Ih00aaqs V Mark George Thelander; Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing To Contract No Ih00aaqs V Jill Maria Thelander [2012] HCA 56 (12 December 2012) four appeals dealing with the construction of provisions of the NSW statutes that limit the costs that a court may order one party to pay another if the amount recovered on a claim for personal injury damages does not exceed a specified amount.  The High Court has  held that claims for personal injury damages based on intentional acts are claims for “personal injury damages” within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 198D.

Facts

The respondents were assaulted by hotel security staff and they sued the appellant who was the insurer of the company that employed those staff for trespass to the person and claimed damages for personal injuries, allegedly intentionally inflicted and intended to injure. The damages awarded in each case were for less than $100,000, with a declaration that each respondent’s costs for legal services should be subject to Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 198D. This section provides that where the amount recovered on a claim for personal injury damages did not exceed $100,000 the maximum costs for legal services provided to a plaintiff are fixed at 20% of the amount recovered or $10,000, whichever is greater. Section198C of the Act provides that "personal injury damages" had the same meaning as in the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). That Act limits awards for personal injury damages. Awards limited by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) are subject to specific exceptions contained within the Act, including personal injury resulting from intentional acts. The central point of difference between the parties was whether the definition of "personal injury damages" was to be construed by reference only to the words of the definition in the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) or by reference to both the words of the definition and the limited operation which the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) had for awards of personal injury damages as a result of the relevant exclusions contained within the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

Earlier Proceedings

The NSW District Court ruled the respondents' claims were for personal injury damages as defined under the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 198D and on appeal, the NSW Court of Appeal  held that the costs for legal services were not subject to s 198D. By special leave, the insurer appealed to the High Court.

Result

The appeals were allowed by the High Court with a majority of the Court finding that the claims made by the respondents were claims for personal injury damages within the meaning of Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 198D.

In reaching its decision the court discussed the following words and phrases "award of personal injury damages", "claim for personal injury damages", "maximum costs", "personal injury damages", "same meaning."

Follow the developments in this case with our Case Law service. TimeBase Case Law includes a comprehensive collection of over 25,000 full text Australian judgments. It is a fast and convenient service giving you access to current and past case law with the ease of powerful, expansive searching. Contact us for a free trial today.