Lee v Lee & Ors; Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited; Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited

The High Court of Australia considered three appeals arising from a single motor vehicle accident. The primary appeal, *Lee v Lee & Ors*, concerned the liability of the driver of a vehicle, Mr. Lee, to his passenger, Ms. Hsu, who suffered severe injuries. The other two appeals, *Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited* and *Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited*, concerned the interpretation of an insurance policy issued by RACQ Insurance Limited to Mr. Lee, specifically whether it covered the liability of Mr. Lee to Ms. Hsu.

The central legal issues before the High Court were: first, whether Mr. Lee owed a duty of care to Ms. Hsu, and if so, whether he breached that duty, causing her injuries; and second, whether the RACQ insurance policy provided indemnity to Mr. Lee in respect of Ms. Hsu's claim. The Court also considered the application of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (Qld) to the circumstances of the accident.

The High Court held that Mr. Lee owed a duty of care to Ms. Hsu and that he breached this duty by driving in a manner that was dangerous and caused the accident. The Court found that the injuries sustained by Ms. Hsu were a direct consequence of this breach. Regarding the insurance policy, the Court determined that the policy did not provide indemnity to Mr. Lee for Ms. Hsu's claim, as the circumstances of the accident fell within an exclusion clause relating to the use of the vehicle for hire or reward.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal in *Lee v Lee & Ors*, upholding the finding of liability against Mr. Lee. The appeals in *Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited* and *Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited* were allowed, meaning RACQ Insurance Limited was not liable to indemnify Mr. Lee for Ms. Hsu's claim.