Fleming v Hutchinson; Conroy v Veit

The High Court of Australia heard applications for special leave to appeal in two cases, *Fleming v Hutchinson* and *Conroy v Veit*. These cases concerned the interpretation of section 93 of the *Transport Accident Act 1986* (Vic), which generally abolished common law claims for damages arising from transport accidents in Victoria, with an exception for those who suffered a "serious injury". The Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria had been divided on the meaning of "serious injury", with the majority adopting a narrow construction that excluded the applicant Fleming from bringing a common law action.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper construction of the term "serious injury" as used in section 93 of the *Transport Accident Act 1986*. This involved determining whether the majority's narrow interpretation, which significantly limited the scope of common law claims, was correct, or if a more liberal interpretation, as advocated by the dissenting judge, was warranted. The significance of this determination extended beyond the individual applicants, as it had the potential to affect the common law rights of millions of people injured in transport accidents in Victoria.

The High Court was required to consider the legislative intent behind section 93 and the meaning of "serious injury" in that context. The court would need to analyse the statutory provisions, including subsection (1) which establishes the general prohibition on recovering damages, and subsection (2)(b) which outlines the exception for serious injury. The differing views of the Appeal Division, particularly the majority's restrictive approach versus the dissenting judge's more expansive interpretation, would form a key part of the High Court's consideration.