The High Court has unanimously allowed an appeal against the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal in Daly v Thiering. Following a motor vehicle accident between Daly and Thiering, in which Daly was alleged to have been at fault, Thiering suffered catastrophic injuries and was rendered a quadriplegic. The Lifetime Care and Support Authority of NSW (LCSA) which administers compensation for care services in relation to motor vehicle accidents under the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006 (NSW), declined to pay Thiering’s mother as attendant carer. The central issue before the High Court was whether the NSWCA properly construed s 130A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). Section 130A (now repealed and replaced) provides that no damages for economic loss relating to treatment and care needs arising from a motor vehicle accident can be awarded to a claimant who is a participant in the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme. A unanimous Court held that the NSWCA erred in reading the phrase ‘that are provided for or are to be provided for’ as meaning ‘that are paid for or are to be paid for’. On its proper construction, the legislative scheme limited common law rights to damages for economic loss, and Thiering thus was not entitled to recover damages for the gratuitous care services of his mother from Daly or Daly’s insurer.