Cross v Certain Lloyds Underwriters

The applicants, certain Lloyds Underwriters, sought leave to appeal and an extension of time to file their applications against orders made by the District Court. The dispute concerned whether legal costs awarded to the plaintiffs in an assault claim were subject to a statutory limitation imposed by section 198D of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) or section 338 of the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (NSW). The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine the correct interpretation and application of these legislative provisions to the awarded costs.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the costs order made by the District Court was constrained by the limitation provisions of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* or the *Legal Profession Act 2004*. This involved considering the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly how a later statute adopts terms from an earlier one, and whether the phrase "as defined in" required the operative statute to adopt the meaning of the term as it functioned within the source statute. The court also had to consider the meaning of "matter" in Schedule 9, clause 18 of the *Legal Profession Act 2004* and the phrase "the same meaning" as used in sections 198C of the 1987 Act and 337 of the 2004 Act.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the *Legal Profession Act 2004* did not intend to apply the limitations of section 198D of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* to matters that arose before the commencement of the 2004 Act. It held that the costs awarded were not subject to the limitation in section 198D of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* or section 338 of the *Legal Profession Act 2004*. The court granted the applicants an extension of time and leave to appeal, set aside the District Court's order declaring the costs subject to the limitation, and declared that the legal costs were not subject to either statutory limitation. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs in the Court of Appeal.