Putting the 'Personal' back into injury: An interpretation of Pt 3-5 of the ACL

There is an ongoing debate in relation to Part 3-5 of the ACL, particularly over its use in relation to other civil liability remedies. This article looks more closely at ss 138 and 139. It argues that, because of a possible design flaw in the statutory construction of s 138, it can be interpreted much more broadly than it has been to date. Also, the paper discusses the effect on an interpretation of s 139 ACL of both the High Court’s decision in Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd, and a small but significant amendment to s 139 when the ACL was enacted. It argues that s 139 can now be interpreted broadly to include claims not just for loss of financial support or services but for all loss or damage or injury caused.