## Facts

- Mr Harding, an English national living and working in England, was badly injured while travelling in New South Wales, Australia.
- He was a passenger in a car driven by his partner, Ms Wealands, an Australian resident who owned the vehicle and had Australian motor liability insurance.
- The car crashed in New South Wales due to Ms Wealands’s negligent driving, causing Mr Harding catastrophic spinal injuries (tetraplegia).
- New South Wales personal injury legislation limited recovery for some categories of loss, including lost earnings and non‑pecuniary loss, meaning Mr Harding would recover materially less than under English damages rules.
- Mr Harding sued Ms Wealands in the High Court of England and Wales. Liability was not in dispute; the dispute was which law governed the measure of damages.
- The High Court held that, although New South Wales law governed the tort under the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, the assessment/quantification of damages was procedural and therefore governed by English law; alternatively, it considered English law should apply under the 1995 Act’s displacement provision.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, treating the New South Wales statutory restrictions as part of the applicable substantive law.
- Mr Harding appealed to the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether the assessment and quantification (measure) of damages in a tort claim is a “matter of procedure” excluded from Part III of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 by s 14(3)(b), so that English law as the lex fori governs quantification.
2. If quantification is not procedural, whether s 12 of the 1995 Act displaced the general rule pointing to New South Wales law in favour of English law for damages.
3. Whether, if the meaning of “procedure” in s 14(3)(b) was unclear, the court could rely on Parliamentary materials (Pepper v Hart) to confirm Parliament’s intention.

## Decision

- Appeal allowed; the House of Lords restored the High Court order.
- New South Wales law was the applicable law of the tort under ss 11–12 of the 1995 Act, governing substantive matters such as the existence of liability and, in general terms, what kinds of loss are recoverable.
- The assessment and quantification of damages was a “matter of procedure” within s 14(3)(b) in its established private international law meaning, so it was governed by English law as the forum law.
- As a result, the New South Wales statutory limitations on the amount of damages were not applied by the English court in measuring Mr Harding’s damages.
- Given that conclusion, it was unnecessary to decide the case by relying on s 12 displacement, though it had been argued below.
- Parliamentary materials were considered capable of confirming the intended meaning of s 14(3)(b) if ambiguity were found.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, the general rule is that the applicable law for tort is the law of the country where the events constituting the tort occurred (lex loci delicti), subject to the statutory displacement test in s 12.
- Section 14(3)(b) preserves the forum’s control over “matters of procedure”; in English conflict of laws, “procedure” is a term with a technical meaning that can be broader than ordinary courtroom mechanics.
- For the purposes of s 14(3)(b), the measure, assessment, and quantification of damages in tort are treated as procedural and are governed by the lex fori.
- The applicable foreign law governs substantive questions (including, in general, the availability of heads of loss), but rules that operate as a method or scale for calculating the amount of damages may fall on the procedural side for an English forum.
- Where statutory language is said to be ambiguous, Parliamentary materials may be consulted in limited circumstances to confirm meaning under Pepper v Hart.

## Conclusion

Harding v. Wealands held that, although New South Wales law governed the substantive tort under the 1995 Act, the English court applied English law to assess and quantify damages because quantification is procedural under s 14(3)(b); consequently, the New South Wales statutory caps did not limit the damages awarded in England.


Harding v. Wealands, 2 A.C. 1 (2006)