Tsimpinos v Allianz (Australia) Workers' Compensation (SA) Pty Ltd & Ors

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Tsimpinos, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The respondents were Allianz (Australia) Workers' Compensation (SA) Pty Ltd and the Nominal Defendant. The dispute concerned the interpretation of section 104 of the *Motor Vehicles Act 1959* (SA) (the Act), which deals with the recovery of damages for personal injury arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Tsimpinos' claim was for damages for personal injury sustained by Mrs Tsimpinos in a motor vehicle accident.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 104 of the *Motor Vehicles Act 1959* (SA) imposed a statutory bar on the recovery of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life where the injured person had not suffered a "serious injury" as defined by section 104(2) of the Act. The applicants argued that the Full Court had erred in holding that section 104(2) applied to all claims for damages, including those for non-economic loss.

Gummow and Callinan JJ held that section 104 of the Act, as amended, did impose a statutory bar on the recovery of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life unless the injured person had suffered a "serious injury" as defined. Their Honours reasoned that the amendments to section 104 were intended to limit the scope of claims for damages in motor vehicle accident cases, and that the definition of "serious injury" in section 104(2) was a threshold requirement for all heads of damage, including non-economic loss. The High Court therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal.