Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross

In *Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross*, the High Court of Australia considered appeals concerning the application of statutory cost limitations to claims for personal injury damages arising from intentional acts. The dispute centred on whether the definition of "personal injury damages" in the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) extended to damages resulting from assaults, where the amounts recovered were less than $100,000. The appellants were insurers of a security company whose employees had assaulted the respondents, leading to judgments for damages below the threshold for the cost limitation.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the proper construction of the term "personal injury damages" as defined in section 198C(1) of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW), which stipulated that it had the same meaning as in Part 2 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine if this definition encompassed claims for damages arising from intentional acts intended to cause injury, or if it was limited to damages arising from negligence. This involved principles of statutory interpretation, including reading provisions in context and considering the effect of amendments.

The High Court reasoned that the text and context of the relevant provisions indicated that a "claim for personal injury damages" included any claim for damages relating to personal or bodily injury caused by another person's fault, whether that fault was a failure to take reasonable care or an intentional act. The court rejected an approach to statutory construction that relied on an assumed legislative purpose not evident from the text. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and dismissing the appeals to that court. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the High Court appeal.