{"id":"nsw:act-1946-033","name":"Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946","slug":"law-reform-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1946","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"nsw","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"33 of 1946","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":111374,"registerId":"nsw-act-1946-033-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Part 1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Preliminary","content":"# Part 1 Preliminary\n\nPart 1 Preliminary","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Name of Act","content":"#### 1 Name of Act\n\n1 Name of Act\n\n> > (1) This Act may be cited as the [Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1946-033).\n> \n> > (2) (Repealed)\n> \n> **s 1:** Am 1970 No 52, Second Sch; 1999 No 31, Sch 5.60.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"Part 2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Alternative defendants and third party procedure","content":"# Part 2 Alternative defendants and third party procedure\n\nPart 2 Alternative defendants and third party procedure","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"1A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application","content":"#### 1A Application\n\n1A Application\n\n> This Part applies to all courts of competent jurisdiction other than the Supreme Court and the District Court.\n> \n> **s 1A:** Ins 1970 No 52, Second Sch. Am 1978 No 3, sec 3 (a).","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Special provisions in relation to certain actions of tort","content":"#### 2 Special provisions in relation to certain actions of tort\n\n2 Special provisions in relation to certain actions of tort\n\n> > (1) In an action of tort in any court to which this Part applies the following provisions shall notwithstanding anything contained in any Act which regulates the procedure and practice of the court, have effect—\n> > \n> > > (a) All persons may be joined as defendants against whom the right to any relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly or severally or in the alternative where if separate actions were brought against such persons any common question of law or fact would arise, and judgment or verdict and judgment may be given against such one or more of the defendants as may be found to be liable, according to their respective liabilities, without any amendment.\n> > \n> > > (b) It shall not be necessary that every defendant shall be interested as to all the relief prayed for, or as to every cause of action included in any proceeding against the defendant; but the court may make such order as may appear just to prevent any defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense by being required to attend any proceedings in which the defendant may have no interest.\n> > \n> > > (c) Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom the plaintiff is entitled to redress, the plaintiff may join two or more defendants, to the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined as between all parties.\n> > \n> > > (d) No action shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court may in every action deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.\n> > \n> > > (e) The plaintiff may unite in the same action several causes of action, but if it appear to the court that any such causes of action cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together, the court may order separate trials of any such causes of action to be had, or may make such other order as may be necessary or expedient for the separate disposal thereof.\n> \n> > (2) The jurisdiction conferred on a court by paragraph (b) or paragraph (e) of subsection (1) may be exercised by a judge of the court sitting either in court or in chambers, or in the case of the Local Court exercising jurisdiction under the [Civil Procedure Act 2005](/view/html/inforce/current/act-2005-028), by a Judge of the Local Court.\n> \n> **s 2:** Am 1970 No 52, Second Sch (am 1972 No 41, Second Sch); 1999 No 31, Sch 4.50 \\[1\\]; 2001 No 121, Sch 2.136; 2006 No 120, Sch 2.46; 2007 No 94, Sch 2; 2025 No 61, Sch 2.59.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Third parties","content":"#### 3 Third parties\n\n3 Third parties\n\n> > (1) Any court to which this Part applies shall have power to grant to any defendant in respect of any right claimed or alleged by the defendant all such relief relating to or connected with the original subject of the cause or matter, claimed in like manner against any other person, whether already a party to the cause or matter or not, who has been duly served with notice in writing of the claim pursuant to rules of court or any order of the court, as might properly have been granted against that person if the person had been made a defendant to an action duly instituted by the same defendant for the like purpose.\n> \n> > (2) Every person served with any such notice as aforesaid shall thenceforth be deemed a party to the cause or matter with the same rights in respect of the person’s defence against the claim as if the person had been duly sued in the ordinary way by the defendant.\n> \n> **s 3:** Am 1970 No 52, Second Sch (am 1972 No 41, Second Sch).","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Rules of court","content":"#### 4 Rules of court\n\n4 Rules of court\n\n> > (1) Rules of court not inconsistent with this Part may be made prescribing all matters which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out the objects and intentions of this Part.\n> \n> > (2) (Repealed)\n> \n> > (3) The power to make rules of court conferred by this section may be exercised—\n> > \n> > > (a) (Repealed)\n> > \n> > > (b) in relation to proceedings in the Local Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under the [Civil Procedure Act 2005](/view/html/inforce/current/act-2005-028), by the Governor.\n> \n> **s 4:** Am 1970 No 52, Second Sch (am 1972 No 41, Second Sch); 1978 No 3, sec 3 (b); 1987 No 48, Sch 32; 1999 No 31, Sch 4.50 \\[2\\]; 2006 No 120, Sch 2.46; 2007 No 94, Sch 1.58.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"Part 3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Contribution between tort-feasors","content":"# Part 3 Contribution between tort-feasors\n\nPart 3 Contribution between tort-feasors","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Proceedings against and contribution between joint and several tort-feasors","content":"#### 5 Proceedings against and contribution between joint and several tort-feasors\n\n5 Proceedings against and contribution between joint and several tort-feasors\n\n> > (1) Where damage is suffered by any person as a result of a tort (whether a crime or not)—\n> > \n> > > (a) judgment recovered against any tort-feasor liable in respect of that damage shall not be a bar to an action against any other person who would, if sued, have been liable as a joint tort-feasor in respect of the same damage,\n> > \n> > > (b) if more than one action is brought in respect of that damage by or on behalf of the person by whom it was suffered, or for the benefit of the estate, or of the spouse, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, parent or child, of that person, against tort-feasors liable in respect of the damage (whether as joint tort-feasors or otherwise) the sums recoverable under the judgments given in those actions by way of damages shall not in the aggregate exceed the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given; and in any of those actions, other than that in which judgment is first given, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to costs unless the court is of opinion that there was reasonable ground for bringing the action,\n> > \n> > > (c) any tort-feasor liable in respect of that damage may recover contribution from any other tort-feasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage, whether as a joint tort-feasor or otherwise, so, however, that no person shall be entitled to recover contribution under this section from any person entitled to be indemnified by that person in respect of the liability in respect of which the contribution is sought.\n> \n> > (2) In any proceedings for contribution under this section the amount of the contribution recoverable from any person shall be such as may be found by the court to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person’s responsibility for the damage; and the court shall have power to exempt any person from liability to make contribution, or to direct that the contribution to be recovered from any person shall amount to a complete indemnity.\n> \n> > (3) For the purposes of this section—\n> > \n> > > (a) the expressions “parent” and “child” have the same meanings as they have for the purposes of the [Compensation to Relatives Act of 1897](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1897-031) as amended by subsequent Acts, and\n> > \n> > > (b) the reference in this section to “the judgment first given” shall, in a case where that judgment is reversed on appeal, be construed as a reference to the judgment first given which is not so reversed and, in a case where a judgment is varied on appeal, be construed as a reference to that judgment as so varied, and\n> > \n> > > (c) the expression spouse of a person includes the de facto partner of a person at the time of his or her death.\n> > > \n> > > Note.\n> > > \n> > > “De facto partner” is defined in section 21C of the [Interpretation Act 1987](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1987-015).\n> \n> > (3A) For the purposes of this section, where a person commits a tort and the Crown is vicariously liable under section 8 of the [Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1983-038) in respect of that tort, the Crown and the person are joint tort-feasors.\n> \n> > (4) Nothing in this section shall—\n> > \n> > > (a) apply with respect to any tort committed before the commencement of this Part, or\n> > \n> > > (a1) apply so as to cause the Crown and a person in the service of the Crown to be joint tort-feasors with respect to a tort to which section 8 of the [Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1983-038) applies committed before the day appointed and notified under section 2 (2) of the [Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1983-038), or\n> > \n> > > (b) affect any criminal proceedings against any person in respect of any wrongful act, or\n> > \n> > > (c) render enforceable any agreement for indemnity which would not have been enforceable if this section had not been passed.\n> \n> > (5) An amendment made to this section by the [Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Relationships) Act 2002](/view/html/repealed/current/act-2002-073) does not apply in respect of an action where the tort concerned occurred before the commencement of the amendment.\n> \n> **s 5:** Am 1951 No 59, sec 6; 1983 No 39, Sch 1; 1984 No 39, sec 3; 2002 No 73, Sch 1.15 \\[1\\]–\\[3\\]; 2010 No 19, Sch 3.56.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"Part 4","sectionType":"part","heading":null,"content":"# Part 4\n\nPart 4\n\n6 (Repealed)\n\n**pt 4 (s 6):** Rep 2017 No 19, Sch 1 \\[2\\].","sortOrder":9}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"source":"grok-batch-everything"},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act began as a procedural reform for tort claims and contribution among joint tortfeasors. Its scope has expanded via amendments to incorporate Crown vicarious liability (via the 1983 Act linkage in s 5(3A) and s 5(4)(a1)), modernise family definitions to include de facto partners (2002 amendments to s 5(3)(c)), align with updated civil procedure rules, and add temporal carve-outs that limit retrospective operation."},"complexity_factors":["Layered amendments across 15+ separate Acts from 1951 to 2025, each altering specific subsections","Cross-references to at least six other statutes including the Civil Procedure Act 2005, Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983, Compensation to Relatives Act 1897, and Interpretation Act 1987","Court-specific application rules (Part 2 excludes Supreme and District Courts but includes Local Court)","Nested exceptions and savings provisions in s 5(4) and s 5(5) covering pre-commencement torts, Crown liability cut-offs, criminal proceedings, and indemnity agreements","Defined terms that import meanings from other legislation (e.g. 'parent', 'child', 'spouse', 'de facto partner')"],"plain_english_summary":"**This Act updates old rules about lawsuits when multiple people might be to blame for harm (called 'torts', which are civil wrongs like negligence causing injury or damage).**\n\nIt has two main parts still in force:\n\n- **Part 2** lets people suing in lower courts (not the Supreme or District Court) join several possible wrongdoers in one case. You can sue them together, separately, or as alternatives if the claims arise from the same event or series of events. It stops cases from failing just because the wrong people were named, and allows courts to split trials if needed. It also lets a defendant bring in a 'third party' who might share responsibility, treating them as a full party to the case.\n\n- **Part 3** allows one wrongdoer who has been ordered to pay damages to seek a 'contribution' from others who are also responsible. The court decides a fair share based on each person's level of fault (it can even order full indemnity or excuse someone entirely). It stops multiple separate lawsuits from adding up to more than the first judgment amount, and clarifies that earlier judgments don't block later claims against others.\n\nThe law applies to torts that are also crimes, covers the Crown (government) as a joint wrongdoer in some cases, and includes modern updates for de facto partners. It matters because it makes it easier and fairer to sort out shared blame without unfair technical barriers or one person paying everything."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act’s operational scope has been altered by later amendments recorded in the text. Section 1A narrows application to courts other than the Supreme Court and the District Court (s 1A). Procedural powers for Local Court civil jurisdiction are specified (s 2(2); s 4(3)(b)). Section 5 was amended to treat the Crown and an employee as joint tort‑feasors where the Crown is vicariously liable under the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (s 5(3A)), and to include de facto partners within the meaning of \"spouse\" for certain purposes (s 5(3)(c)). Part 4 (s 6) was repealed (pt 4 (s 6): Rep). These textual amendments changed which courts and parties the Part governs and introduced specific exceptions and definitions, modifying the original operational reach of the provisions."},"complexity_factors":["Cross‑references to other statutes (e.g. Civil Procedure Act 2005; Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983) increase interpretive complexity (s 2(2), s 4(3)(b), s 5(3A))","Significant judicial discretion in apportioning contribution and in protective orders (s 5(2); s 2(b))","Procedural interactions between plaintiff joinder, defendant third‑party notice, and rules of court require coordinated case management (s 2, s 3, s 4)","Special definitions and temporal exceptions (parent/child definitions, de facto partner inclusion, non‑retroactivity clauses) add drafting complexity (s 5(3); s 5(4))","Amendment and repeal history affecting application to particular courts and rights means practitioners must track which provisions apply in which fora (s 1A; amendment notes)"],"plain_english_summary":"### What this Act does, in plain terms\n\n- The Act changes civil procedure rules for tort claims in lower courts (not the Supreme Court or the District Court) (s 1A). It sets out how multiple parties can be joined in tort litigation, how defendants can involve third parties, and how defendants can obtain contribution from other wrongdoers. (s 2–5)\n\n- Joining defendants and claims: A plaintiff may join any number of people as defendants if their alleged liabilities arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and if common questions of law or fact would arise (s 2(a), (c), (e)). The court can order separate trials where combining causes of action would be inconvenient (s 2(e)). The court can also protect a defendant from needless expense when that defendant is not interested in part of the relief sought (s 2(b)). Misjoinder or non‑joinder of parties will not automatically defeat an action; the court can decide the dispute as to the parties before it (s 2(d)).\n\n- Third‑party procedure: A defendant can claim against a third party connected to the same subject matter by serving that person with written notice in accordance with court rules or orders. Once served, that third party is treated as if they had been sued and has the same rights to defend the claim (s 3(1)–(2)).\n\n- Rules and judicial practice: The court (and, for Local Court civil jurisdiction, the Governor) may make rules consistent with this Part to carry out its objects (s 4). Certain procedural powers may be exercised by a judge sitting in court or in chambers (s 2(2)).\n\n- Contribution between tort‑feasors: A plaintiff can obtain judgment against one tort‑feasor and still sue others for the same damage; the total damages recoverable across multiple judgments cannot exceed the amount awarded by the first judgment (s 5(1)(a)–(b)). Generally, a plaintiff who brings later actions is not entitled to costs unless the court thinks there was a reasonable ground for bringing that action (s 5(1)(b)). Any tort‑feasor who is liable may seek contribution from other tort‑feasors for their share of liability; the court decides a just and equitable apportionment and may exempt a person from contribution or order a complete indemnity (s 5(1)(c)–(2)).\n\n- Definitions and special rules: The Act clarifies application of family terms (parent/child) for contribution purposes and treats the Crown as a joint tort‑feasor with an employee when the Crown is vicariously liable under the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (s 5(3), (3A)). The Act does not apply to torts committed before the commencement of the relevant Part or to affect criminal proceedings, and it does not make unenforceable indemnity agreements enforceable (s 5(4)).\n\n### Who pays and who decides\n\n- Who pays: Damages are paid by liable tort‑feasors to plaintiffs; defendants who pay may recover contribution from other tort‑feasors under court direction (s 5(1)(c)–(2)). Plaintiffs who bring multiple suits are limited in total recovery to the amount awarded by the first judgment (s 5(1)(b)).\n\n- Who decides: Courts (including judges in chambers) make the procedural and apportionment decisions (s 2(2), s 5(2)). The Governor may make rules for Local Court civil proceedings under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (s 4(3)(b)).\n\n### Behavioural and incentive effects, trade‑offs and practical consequences\n\n- Consolidation incentive: Plaintiffs are enabled to join multiple potentially liable defendants in one action when claims arise from the same transaction(s), which encourages consolidation of related claims (s 2(a), (c)). That reduces duplication but may increase complexity in any given case.\n\n- Defence and third‑party routes: Defendants can bring third parties into the dispute by serving notice, shifting the burden of resolving contribution and indemnity issues into the same proceeding (s 3). That concentrates the legal contest and potentially shifts costs between defendants depending on the court’s apportionment (s 5(1)(c)–(2)).\n\n- Limit on aggregate recovery: Plaintiffs cannot obtain aggregate awards exceeding the amount of the first judgment, which limits the plaintiff’s total recovery while allowing multiple proceedings to be brought (s 5(1)(b)). This creates an incentive for plaintiffs to pursue the strongest initial claim promptly.\n\n- Judicial discretion and uncertainty: The court is given broad discretion to apportion contribution “just and equitable,” to exempt persons from contribution, and to order indemnities (s 5(2)). That discretion allows case‑by‑case resolution but creates uncertainty for parties predicting their net exposures and recoveries.\n\n- Compliance and procedural burden: Bringing third‑party claims requires serving written notice in accordance with rules of court (s 3(1)). Parties must follow rules the court or Governor makes under s 4, so procedural compliance matters for the effectiveness of these mechanisms (s 4(1), (3)(b)).\n\n### Costs, concentrated benefits and implementation risks\n\n- Concentrated benefits: Defendants have a clear statutory mechanism to recover contribution from others (s 5(1)(c)). That is a discrete, enforceable benefit for defendants who pay damages and seek apportionment.\n\n- Diffuse costs and litigation complexity: Plaintiffs face procedural limits on aggregate recovery and may confront multiple defendants and third‑party claims in a single proceeding, which can increase the complexity and cost of litigation (s 2, s 3, s 5(1)(b)).\n\n- Implementation risks: The broad language allowing the court to make what is “just and equitable” (s 5(2)) and to craft orders preventing defendants from being embarrassed or put to expense (s 2(b)) means outcomes depend substantially on judicial interpretation and case management. Effective operation therefore depends on rules of court and judicial case management (s 4; s 2(2)).\n\n### Procedural limits and exclusions\n\n- The Part does not apply to the Supreme Court or the District Court (s 1A). It does not apply retroactively to torts committed before commencement of the relevant Part, nor does it affect criminal proceedings (s 5(4)).\n\n(References in parentheses are to the sections of the Act cited.)"},"summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"It is not possible to assess whether the scope of this Act has changed from its original intent, as the full legislative text was not provided. Only website navigation and status metadata were included in the document supplied for analysis."},"complexity_factors":["The actual legislative text was not provided — only website metadata and navigation elements were included, severely limiting analysis","The Act has been amended at least 8 times since 1999, suggesting accumulated layers of changes that could add complexity","Historically, 'Miscellaneous Provisions' Acts bundle unrelated legal reforms together, which can make it harder to understand the law as a coherent whole","The Act dates to 1946, meaning it may use older legal language and concepts that require interpretation in a modern context","Complexity score is kept low (3) because without the actual text, the true complexity cannot be assessed — the score reflects the limited information available"],"plain_english_summary":"## Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW)\n\n**What is this law?**\nThis is a New South Wales law that has been in force since 1946. Unfortunately, the document provided contains only the **website navigation and metadata** for this Act — not the actual text of the legislation itself. As a result, a detailed analysis of what the law specifically does cannot be completed from this document alone.\n\n**What we do know:**\n- It is a NSW law overseen by the **Attorney General**\n- It has been amended multiple times since 1999, with the most recent update on **28 March 2026**\n- The title \"Miscellaneous Provisions\" typically signals a law that makes **a collection of unrelated reforms** to various areas of law in one package — a common legislative housekeeping technique\n- Historically, this type of Act in NSW has dealt with matters such as **survival of legal claims after death** (meaning your estate can still sue or be sued after you die), **contributory negligence** (sharing blame between parties in an accident), and other civil law reforms\n\n**Who might be affected?**\nPotentially anyone involved in civil legal disputes in NSW, including people making personal injury claims, estates of deceased persons, and parties to contracts.\n\n**Bottom line:** The actual provisions of this Act could not be analysed because the full legislative text was not included in the provided document — only website chrome and status information was supplied."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/law-reform-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1946","history":"/api/acts/law-reform-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1946/history","analysis":"/api/acts/law-reform-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1946/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/law-reform-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1946/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/law-reform-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1946/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/law-reform-miscellaneous-provisions-act-1946/documents"}}