AAI Limited (t/a AAMI) v Boga [2020] NSWSC 1903

AAI Limited (t/a AAMI) v Boga [2020] NSWSC 1903

The amended summons was dismissed because the plaintiff did not establish jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record. Read as a whole, Dr Wilding's certificate and report adequately explained why he assessed right shoulder impairment despite finding no local right shoulder injury, and his shorthand reference to the Nguyen principle did not invalidate the reasons. The plaintiff did not prove that Dr Wilding failed to apply the Guidelines, including Guideline 1.6 or Guideline 1.41, and an assessor who observed no inconsistencies was not required to put alleged inconsistencies in earlier medico-legal reports to the injured person. The proper officer expressly applied the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Pursuant to S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) of Medical Assessment and Proper Officer Decisions Under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment on Amended Summons, Including Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
The time for filing the summons was extended until 29 May 2020, but the amended summons was dismissed and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'adequacy of Reasons by Medical Assessor' 'permanent Impairment Assessment' 'motor Accidents Permanent Impairment Guidelines' 'procedural Fairness' 'reasonable Cause to Suspect Material Error' 'extension of Time']
['administrative Law' 'motor Accidents Compensation' 'judicial Review'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'adequacy of Reasons by Medical Assessor' 'permanent Impairment Assessment' 'motor Accidents Permanent Impairment Guidelines' 'procedural Fairness' 'reasonable Cause to Suspect Material Error' 'extension of Time']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Pursuant to S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) of Medical Assessment and Proper Officer Decisions Under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment on Amended Summons, Including Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the medical assessor failed to give adequate reasons for assessing 2% whole person impairment for the right shoulder by reference to the Nguyen principle.' 'Whether the medical assessor failed to assess permanent impairment in accordance with the Motor Accidents Permanent Impairment Guidelines, including causation and consistency requirements.' 'Whether the medical assessor was required to put alleged inconsistencies in earlier medico-legal reports to the injured person and whether failure to do so denied procedural fairness.' 'Whether the proper officer applied the correct statutory test under s 63 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) when dismissing the application for review.' 'Whether time for filing the summons should be extended under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended summons was dismissed because the plaintiff did not establish jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record. Read as a whole, Dr Wilding's certificate and report adequately explained why he assessed right shoulder impairment despite finding no local right shoulder injury, and his shorthand reference to the Nguyen principle did not invalidate the reasons. The plaintiff did not prove that Dr Wilding failed to apply the Guidelines, including Guideline 1.6 or Guideline 1.41, and an assessor who observed no inconsistencies was not required to put alleged inconsistencies in earlier medico-legal reports to the injured person. The proper officer expressly applied the...

Court Disposition

The time for filing the summons was extended until 29 May 2020, but the amended summons was dismissed and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The time for the filing of the summons is extended until 29 May 2020.' 'The amended summons is dismissed.' "The plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs." "Leave to apply on three days' notice was granted if either party seeks a variation of the costs orders."]