Rose v Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWSC 134

Rose v Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWSC 134

The Panel failed to comply with mandatory requirements of the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines by: (1) improperly assessing employability instead of adaptation, (2) failing to use the required assessment forms and categories, (3) not exposing its path of reasoning for key impairment findings, and (4) failing to afford procedural fairness by basing conclusions on a report that was neither put to the plaintiff nor clearly explained. These errors constituted jurisdictional error justifying the Panel's certificate being set aside and the matter remitted for lawful determination.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ethan James Rose; First Defendant: Insurance Australia Limited Trading as NRMA Insurance; Second Defendants: Belinda Cassidy, Dr Christopher John Rikard-Bell and Dr Doron Samuell as a Medical Review Panel of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales; Third Defendant: The President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Panel's certificate set aside; matter remitted; costs to plaintiff unless parties seek alternative order within 14 days
Legal Topics
Medical Panel Review, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdictional Error, Reasons for Decision, Motor Accident Compensation
Administrative Law Personal Injury Medical Panel Review Procedural Fairness Jurisdictional Error Reasons for Decision Motor Accident Compensation

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ethan James Rose

Plaintiff

Insurance Australia Limited Trading as NRMA Insurance

First Defendant

Belinda Cassidy, Dr Christopher John Rikard-Bell and Dr Doron Samuell as a Medical Review Panel of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales

Second Defendants

The President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Medical Review Panel failed to comply with the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines in assessing whole person impairment
  2. 2 Whether the panel denied procedural fairness by failing to disclose critical material it relied upon
  3. 3 Whether the panel failed to expose its path of reasoning as required by law

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel failed to comply with mandatory requirements of the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines by: (1) improperly assessing employability instead of adaptation, (2) failing to use the required assessment forms and categories, (3) not exposing its path of reasoning for key impairment findings, and (4) failing to afford procedural fairness by basing conclusions on a report that was neither put to the plaintiff nor clearly explained. These errors constituted jurisdictional error justifying the Panel's certificate being set aside and the matter remitted for lawful determination.

Court Disposition

Panel's certificate set aside; matter remitted; costs to plaintiff unless parties seek alternative order within 14 days

Orders

  • The Panel's certificate be set aside.
  • The matter be remitted to the President of the Personal Injury Commission to be dealt with according to law.