Chiaverini v Hockey

The parties in this matter were the applicants, Mr and Mrs Chiaverini, and the respondents, Mr and Mrs Hockey. The dispute concerned the interpretation of section 4 of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944* (NSW), which deals with the extension of liability in certain cases, particularly in relation to claims for nervous shock or psychiatric illness arising from injury. The case came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted section 4 of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944* (NSW). Specifically, the applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the section by failing to follow the interpretation previously stated by the High Court in *Scala v Mammolitti*. The applicants contended that this misinterpretation constituted a strong ground for special leave, as it involved a misunderstanding of a significant provision within New South Wales negligence and compensation law.

The applicants' submission was that section 4 of the Act was intended to remove the common law tests of foreseeability and remoteness in the context of the special relationship between husband and wife, in respect of injuries that could lead to nervous shock or psychiatric illness. They argued that the Act extended liability for injury caused by an act, neglect, or default where someone was killed, and that this extension was adjectival to the word "injury," describing the type of injury for which compensation could be paid. The applicants asserted that the Court of Appeal's judgment did not align with this understanding of the legislative purpose and effect of the section.