RPPL [2025] FCA 1126; Stretton [2025] VSC 589
Two cases show how the re-enactment presumption works in practice. In RPPL, the issue was whether jurisdiction provisions in new ART legislation are to be read the same way as in the old AAT legislation8. Given the new provisions took into account the ‘existing well-settled position’, Cheeseman J (at [70]) held that the presumption ‘applies with force’.
In Stretton, a tiler fell off the roof and sought common law damages from a third party. The issue was whether ‘compensation’ in one section of an Act9 meant only ‘compensation under [that] Act’. Text, context and purpose in re-enacting the section made it clear damages had to be pursued separately.
This principle is from Episode 126 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
8 s 172(1) ART Act 2024 (Cth), s 44(1) AAT Act 1975 (Cth) resp.
9 s 326 Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic).