There is also a presumption, which derives from the era when the primacy of the common law was only marginally impinged upon by statute law, that a provision which is ambiguous as to whether or not it effects a change in the law shall be regarded as not effecting any such change. In Minister for Industry and Commerce v Hales, Henchy J endorsed this presumption, citing Maxwell.
Statutory Drafting and Interpretation, Consultation Paper on: Plain Language and the Law (LRC CP14-1999)  IELRC 1 (1st July, 1999)
" [The General Assembly] is presumed to have known and to have had the common law in mind in the enactment of a statute. The statute must therefore be read along with the provisions of the common law, and the latter will be read into the statute unless it clearly appears from express language or by necessary implication that the purpose of the statute was to change the common law."
Isbel v. Commercial Invetsments Associates, Inc., 273 Va. 605, 644 S.E.2d 72 (2007).
Esteban v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 605, 587 S.E.2d 523 (2003).
One may also like to see for the presumption against the changes in common law...