Unlimited Liability? Not Quite: How the High Court Clarified Airline Tariff Promises in Evans v Air Canada

Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › International & Cross-Border Cases › Aviation Law › Evans v Air Canada [2025] HCA 22 (14 May 2025)

Published: 19 November 2025 | Reviewed: 19 November 2025
(3-minute read)

Case Summary

This case asked whether Air Canada had contractually waived the partial defence in Art 21(2) of the Montreal Convention, which caps recovery above 100,000 SDR unless the airline is at fault. Two passengers injured in turbulence argued that Air Canada’s tariff promised unlimited damages because it stated:

“There are no financial limits in respect of death or bodily injury.”

They relied on Art 25 of the Convention, which allows carriers to stipulate higher (or no) limits of liability.

The High Court accepted the premise, an airline can waive the Art 21(2) defence. But it held that Air Canada had not done so. The airline’s tariff was describing the Montreal Convention’s structure, not waiving the defence that applied above the threshold. Context showed:

• the tariff summarised multiple international regimes (Warsaw, Montreal, IATA agreements),

• the Montreal Convention’s two-tier system already includes “unlimited liability” subject to the defence in Art 21(2),

• the tariff did not use waiver language where other parts of the tariff did clearly waive Warsaw defences,

• Air Canada expressly retained a negligence-based defence elsewhere in the tariff.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Why It Still Matters

The case illustrates a risk many clients face: documents that appear to promise broad protection but, in context, provide far less.

Air Canada’s tariff looked straightforward. The phrase “no financial limits” seems to promise full recovery. But once placed beside:

• international treaty text,

• historical aviation agreements,

• statutory incorporation rules,

• and cross-referenced provisions within the tariff itself,

its meaning changed entirely.

This is a common client experience in commercial disputes:

• insurers describe “coverage” that disappears in the fine print;

• contractual caps operate differently once statutory context is read;

• terms appear generous until technical defences surface;

• a single sentence may be declaratory, not operative.

The High Court emphasised holistic interpretation, structured context, and international law principles — precisely the areas where clients feel least confident at the decision-making stage.

For Clean Law’s clients, the practical lesson is clear:

a document that seems favourable can, under legal interpretation, offer less protection than assumed - and sometimes none.

How to Avoid the Same Trap:
Independence & Pre-Commitment Clarity

Because this case turns on what clients think they have agreed to versus what the law actually provides, the most relevant Clean Law safeguard is independence through structured, multi-expert early advice.

1. Independence safeguards

Clean Law’s governance model is built to protect clients from hidden or misunderstood risks:

• no referral fees or shared profits,

• independent lawyers for strategy and advocacy,

• Law Society trust-account audits,

• ACNC-governed transparency,

• clear role separation that avoids incentives to push litigation prematurely.

These safeguards are designed to ensure clarity before clients commit money or rely on contractual promises.

2. Consolidated tenders: understanding the real effect of documents before acting

To prevent clients from being caught by technical interpretations like those seen in Evans, Clean Law prepares:

1. One neutral case summary of the documents, treaties, statutes and contractual terms;

2. Sends it to multiple independent barristers or experts;

3. Gathers separate, unaligned assessments on liability, exposure, and interpretation;

4. Consolidates those views into a plain-language pack for the client.

This process means the client understands exactly what a clause does, not just what it looks like.

Many readers of this case want a clearer view of how Clean Law structures independence and early clarity so clients are not blindsided by technical defences. Our independence explainer walks through that safeguard.

Learn more → Independence & Safeguards Framework

Evans v Air Canada demonstrates that liability documents can appear generous while hiding critical limitations. The Court’s approach, careful context, treaty interpretation, and precision, mirrors the kind of early clarity clients need before relying on any contractual promise.

If you are dealing with complex terms, international contracts, or clauses that may not mean what they seem to say, a confidential discussion can help map the safest, proportionate steps forward.

Book a confidential discussion → Secure a Private Consultation

By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.

Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.