Mitchell v Latrobe Regional Hospital

(2016) 51 VR 581; [2016] VSCA 342

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Personal injury
3. › Non-economic loss
4. › Significant injury threshold
5. › Psychiatric injury
6. › Amendment lowering threshold from 'more than 10 per cent' to '10 per cent or more'
7. › Whether pre-amendment medical panel certificate precluded claim under new threshold
8. › Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), pt VBA, ss 28LB, 28LE, 28LF, 28LZH, 28LZS
1. Statutes
2. › Statutory construction
3. › Amendment of statute
4. › Transitional provisions
5. › Whether amendment had retrospective operation
6. › Whether any right acquired or accrued under earlier version of statute
7. › Whether amendment affected previous operation of statute or anything duly done
8. › Whether contrary intention expressly appeared
9. › Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), s 14(2)
10. › Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), s 28LZS
1. Words and Phrases
2. › Meaning of 'unless the contrary intention expressly appears'
3. › Meaning of 'expressly'
4. › Whether 'expressly' means 'by express words' or 'plainly, clearly, or by necessary implication'
5. › Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), s 14(2)

Quick Take

A medical panel certificate of determination issued under the pre-amendment significant injury threshold does not preclude a plaintiff's claim for non-economic loss where the threshold has been subsequently lowered and the proceeding has not been finally settled or determined. The new threshold applies to all extant proceedings by virtue of s 28LZS. The word 'expressly' in s 14(2) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) means 'plainly', 'clearly', or 'by necessary implication' and does not require express words identifying each provision affected.