Dermatology & Cosmetic v Nichols [2025] VSCA 328
After surgery, N sued the doctors for ‘significant injury’4. Her solicitors emailed medical assessments to their solicitor. These came to the doctors’ attention a few days later. The doctors challenged the assessments by way of referral to a medical panel. The referral was valid only if it occurred within 60 days after the assessments were served on the doctors5.
The court held that ‘serve’ took its legal meaning ‘absent contrary contextual indication’6. This meaning recognised common law principles and ‘supervening jurisprudence’7. It required bringing to attention as a matter of fact8. This validly occurred when assessments came to the doctors’ attention9.
This principle is from Episode 130 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
4 ss 28LE & 28LF Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).
5 ss 28LT & 28LWE Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) ‘within 60 days’.
6 [31], Brewery Employees (1908) 6 CLR 469 (531), cf Pearce 10th ed [4.32].
7 [31], Workpac [2018] FCAFC 131 [108], Electrolux [2004] HCA 40 [162].
8 [32], Capper [1998] HCA 24 [21-22], Howship [1996] NSWSC 314.
9 The court criticised the conduct of all the lawyers involved [64-65].