Haureliuk v Furler

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal concerning the interpretation of section 144(2) of the *Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008* (ACT). The dispute centred on whether damages awarded for pain and suffering should be excluded from the calculation of a "mandatory final offer" when determining an award of costs under section 144 of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the proper construction of section 144(2) of the Act, specifically whether the phrase "amount of the mandatory final offer" encompassed damages for pain and suffering. This involved considering the principles of statutory interpretation, including the circumstances under which extrinsic material may be used to aid in construing legislation.

The Court reasoned that the plain language of section 144(2) did not support the exclusion of pain and suffering damages from the calculation of the mandatory final offer. It applied established principles of statutory construction, finding no ambiguity in the provision that would necessitate recourse to extrinsic materials. The Court concluded that the Act intended for all components of a settlement offer, including pain and suffering damages, to be considered when assessing costs under section 144.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.