Diploma of Legal Studies Relevant Motor Accident

Questions: 1.Determine whether the Kawasaki is a motor vehicle for the purposes of being an uninsured motor vehicle? 2.Apply the statutory interpretation methods you have studied in this unit? 3.Support your findings by making reference to the statutory interpretation methods used? Answers: 1. Determination of Kawasaki as motor vehicle for the purpose of being an uninsured motor vehicle According to the regulations of Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, motor vehicle refers to a vehicle that has been registered under the regulations of Transport Operations 2010. Whereas, uninsured motor vehicle refers to a motor vehicle against which the CTP (Compulsory third- party) insurance policy has not been covered other than the vehicle, which was owned by self- insured individual (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). The act further provides claim and resolution for personal injury caused through the insured motor vehicle in several conditions whereas if the motor vehicle is uninsured, then the principles of act will be applicable only if the accident takes place on road or in a public area. The act further states that an individual is not entitled to drive an uninsured motor vehicle in a public area or on road; doing so will be considered as an offence (Cusimano Roberts, 2016). In the present scenario, collision happened between Suzuki motor cycle covered by CTP insurance and Kawasaki motor cycle, which was not covered under CTP insurance. Further, the given does not specify whether the self- insurer is a registered owner hence, the Kawasaki motor vehicle would be considered as uninsured motor vehicle. Consequently, as per the regulations of Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, Kawasaki is referred as motor vehicle for the purpose of being an uninsured vehicle. 2. Application of Statutory interpretation methods In order to apply relevant legislations on disputes there are certain methods of statutory interpretation used by courts. If a case incorporates a statute, it is essential to apply relevant methods to interpret the scenario and apply relevant regulations and principles. It has been observed during interpretation, it is significant to apply the relevant legislation to address all the matters. However, it has been difficult to apply all the legislations unambiguously as well as to address all matters due to certain uncertainties (Colquitt, 2014). Imperfect word symbols for communication reflects ambiguousness that changes the meaning over the period or inevitable unforeseen situations together with new technologies influences uncertainties in the legislations. Accordingly, statutory construction is required to be considered by courts to determine and enforce unambiguous legislations and statues to interpret a particular case (De Mot Faure, 2014). Common Law method is often used by the courts to make a statutory interpretation that is considered as body of law derived from the English legal customs and practices. Unlike statute law, common law has been formed by judges, which can be overruled by statute legislation. In order to interpret a case, literal rule under common law is applied by judges at the initial stage that is interpreted by using ordinary meaning for the language incorporated except in a case where statute specifically defines certain terms (Carney, 2015). For instance, in case of Fisher v Bell (1961) 1 QB 394, court applied literal rule to make statutory interpretation which involves an issue of criminal offence for the offer of flick knives. Besides, the aggrieved party contended that the knife should be considered as invitation to treat as the product was merely on display hence, the decision was ruled on the basis of literal rule. Golden rule is considered by the court to avoid any illogical result due to the application of normal meaning. It is often termed as secondary meaning, which is applied by English court to provide ordinary meanings to the statute words. In case of Adler v George (1964) 2 QB 7, rulings were based on the golden rule of statutory interpretations as the presence of person near prohibited place would be ambiguous when the person is actually not in the place (Gensler, 2013). There are certain cases or situations that requires application of mischief rule to make statutory interpretations in order to evaluate defect in a questionable statute. For application of mischief rule, court enquires about the part of legislation that was not covered in deciding the case but relevant to be rectified to pass the bill (Walton, Sartor Macagno, 2016). This rule is applicable only when the statute has been passed to rectify common law defects. In case of DPP v Bull (1995) QB 88, court applied mischief rule to rule the applicability of Street Offences Act 1959, which is meant for females only and not for males. For the purpose of interpreting statutes, court uses several aids with respect to the internal and external materials. Internal materials refer to the materials that are contained within the statutes and involve long title to the act, explanatory notes as well as relevant definitions. Besides, external aids are not contained within the statute but referred by courts in the form of dictionaries, text- books, case laws or reports of law commission (French, 2015). 3. Relating the methods of statutory interpretation methods In view of the above discussion on the methods of statutory interpretations, it can be said that determination of Kawasaki motor vehicle in the present case will be based on the rules of common law. Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 clearly states the meaning of uninsured motor vehicle as well as the conditions when aggrieved person claims for the injury. It is clearly mentioned that a vehicle not covered under CTP insurance policy is considered as uninsured motor vehicle. Further, it is also mentioned that a person is entitled to claim for injury through uninsured vehicle if the accident takes place on road or in a public area (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). Accordingly, literal rules of common law can be applied to interpret the statute for determining the motor vehicle for the purpose of being and uninsured motor vehicle. The situation further provides that that injury caused to Jane was due to collision between Suzuki motor cycle and Kawasaki motor cycle on an off- road track on the land that was owned by Qld Rail. Similar to the case of Ruckman v Suncorp Metway Insurance (2013) QCA 56, court held that the aggrieved party is entitled to recover the claim confirming the insurer as CTP. As per the principles of act, if accident happens on a place other than road or public area, aggrieved person will not be entitled to claim for injury. In addition, the act defines the situation that defines the insurer that is if the motor vehicle is uninsured and the owner is not registered then the nominal defendant will be considered as an insurer (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). Accordingly, in the given case, Kawasaki owner is referred as nominal defendant by applying the golden rules because the situation does not clearly mentions whether the owner of Kawasaki motor cycle is registered owner or not. Therefore, as per gold en rule on statutory interpretation it has been implied and contended that the owner is a registered owner or self- insurer. Considering the entitlement of Jane Citizen to claim the amount of damages would be examined by applying literal rule of common law. As the statute states that if the accident takes place through uninsured motor vehicle on a road or public place, then only the person can claim for damages (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). Hence, it can be interpreted by applying literal rules that if accident takes place on any other place, then the aggrieved party is not entitled to claim for damages. In the present case, accident happened due to the fault of Kawasaki rider, uninsured motor vehicle on an off- road track owned by Qld Rail. Therefore, it is can be interpreted without any ambiguity that Jane Citizen cannot claim for damages as per the Act since, the accident did not happen on road or on public place. References Austlii.edu.au. (2017). Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII). Retrieved 15 March 2017, from https://www.austlii.edu.au Carney, G. (2015). Comparative Approaches to Statutory Interpretation in Civil Law and Common Law Jurisdictions.Statute law review,36(1). Colquitt, J. (2014). A New Crash Test: The Rise and Fall of Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law. Cusimano, G. S., Roberts, M. L. (2016). Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage.Alabama Tort Law,1. De Mot, J., Faure, M. G. (2014). Special insurance systems for motor vehicle liability.The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Issues and Practice,39(3), 569-584. French, R. (2015, November). Statutory interpretation and rationality in administrative law: National lecture on administrative law 2015. InAIAL Forum(No. 82, p. 1). Australian Institute of Administrative Law. Gensler, H. J. (2013).Ethics and the golden rule. Routledge. Harrington, R., Foster, M., Fleming, J. (2015). Experiences of pathways, outcomes and choice after severe traumatic brain injury under no-fault versus fault-based motor accident insurance.Brain injury,29(13-14), 1561-1571. Morse, S. C., Deutsch, R. (2016). Tax Anti-Avoidance Law in Australia and the United States. Walton, D., Sartor, G., Macagno, F. (2016). An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation.Artificial Intelligence and Law,24(1), 51-91.