State of New South Wales v Williamson

The case of *State of New South Wales v Williamson* concerned an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal regarding the application of a costs limitation under the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (NSW). The dispute centred on whether a claim for damages, which included elements of false imprisonment and wrongful deprivation of liberty, constituted a claim for "personal injury damages" for the purposes of section 338 of that Act.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was to determine the correct interpretation of "personal injury damages" as defined in section 338 of the *Legal Profession Act 2004* (NSW). This definition referred to the meaning in Part 2 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). The Court had to consider whether this limitation applied to damages arising from intentional acts and, crucially, whether a claim for false imprisonment, encompassing damages for loss of liberty and dignity, qualified as a claim for "personal injury damages" under the relevant legislation.

The Court of Appeal, in applying principles of statutory interpretation, considered the context and evolution of the relevant legislative provisions. It followed the precedent set in *Cross v Certain Lloyds Underwriters* [2011] NSWCA 136, finding that a claim for false imprisonment, where damages for wrongful deprivation of liberty and loss of dignity were sought and were not severable from the overall claim, was not a claim for "personal injury damages" for the purposes of section 338. The Court reasoned that the definition in the *Legal Profession Act* adopted the meaning from the *Civil Liability Act*, and that the scope of application of Part 2 of the *Civil Liability Act* was distinct from the meaning of the term itself. The Court found no clear error in the *Cross* decision, providing an additional reason to follow it.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal was granted on specific conditions, including that the Applicant pay the Respondent's costs in any event and not seek to disturb the costs order made in the Supreme Court below.