Inglis v Metrolink Victoria Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Inglis against Metrolink Victoria Pty Ltd concerning the interpretation of a statutory indemnity provision. The dispute arose from a claim for damages brought by Inglis against Metrolink, which Metrolink sought to defend by relying on an indemnity granted to it under section 116 of the *Transport Integration Act 2010* (Vic). The core of the disagreement lay in whether this indemnity extended to cover liabilities arising from Metrolink's own negligence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the indemnity provided by section 116 of the *Transport Integration Act 2010* (Vic) was intended by Parliament to cover liabilities arising from the indemnitee's own negligence. This required an examination of the statutory language, its context within the broader legislative scheme, and the established principles of statutory interpretation concerning indemnity clauses.

The High Court, comprising French CJ and Kiefel J, held that section 116 of the *Transport Integration Act 2010* (Vic) did not extend to indemnify Metrolink for liabilities arising from its own negligence. Their Honours reasoned that while the language of the indemnity was broad, it did not contain the clear and unambiguous words necessary to displace the ordinary rule that a party is responsible for its own wrongdoing. The Court emphasised that statutory indemnities are to be construed strictly, and an intention to indemnify against one's own negligence must be expressed with compelling clarity, which was absent in this provision. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.