The statutory prohibition on multiple claims under s 104B(5AA) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) does not bar a second claim under s 98C where the claimant lacked the mental capacity to include the relevant injury in the first claim. The relevant test is whether the claimant was capable of understanding the nature of the particular transaction — here, whether the claimant could comprehend that they suffered from a compensable psychiatric condition. On appeal under s 52(1), a party may contend that the trial judge was bound to reach a particular conclusion on the evidence, even if no such submission was made at trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.