Remedial legislation

Krajcar [2022] VSC 173 and Kildair [2022] VSC 251

Two Victorian cases make key points on remedial and beneficial legislation.  In the first, Croft J (at [39-41]) notes that, while remedial laws ‘should be given a beneficial construction’9, this does not allow a court ‘to transcend express words … or to disregard the fundamental structure and approach of legislation’10.

In the second, Engelfield JR (at [38-40]) says that, while the overall purpose may be remedial, the ‘particular purpose of each provision must be identified’11.  A provision of limitation does ‘not call for artificial extensions’.  iTip – that remedial legislation is to be read beneficially in line with purpose confers no open licence on the interpreter.

This principle is from Episode 85 of interpretation NOW!


9 Kearney (1984) 52 ALR 24 (at 28) cited, cf Episodes 67 & 71.

10 Khoury (1984) 165 CLR 622 (at 650), Fitzroy Dental [2013] VSC 344 (at [42]).

11ADCO [2014] HCA 18 (at [29]) cited, cf Burns [2022] VSC 294 (at [45]).