IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Abiad [2018] NSWSC 1422

IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Abiad [2018] NSWSC 1422

The claims assessor erred by determining the truth of the insurer's allegations of false or misleading statements, rather than confining himself to a preliminary evaluation of whether the claims were suitable for assessment. This constituted a jurisdictional error or failure to perform the correct statutory task under s 92(1)(b); hence, the decisions must be quashed.

Parties
Plaintiff: IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance; First Defendant: Karim Abiad; Second Defendant: Sakine Alameddine; Third Defendant: State Insurance Regulatory Authority of New South Wales (SIRA); Fourth Defendant: Richard Buckley, in his capacity as a claims assessor of SIRA
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Order in the nature of certiorari granted; orders of claims assessor quashed and matter remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Error, Claims Assessment, Personal Injury, False or Misleading Statements
Administrative Law Judicial Review Jurisdictional Error Claims Assessment Personal Injury False or Misleading Statements

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 2 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance

Plaintiff

Karim Abiad

First Defendant

Sakine Alameddine

Second Defendant

State Insurance Regulatory Authority of New South Wales (SIRA)

Third Defendant

Richard Buckley, in his capacity as a claims assessor of SIRA

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims assessor erred in law by making factual findings regarding alleged false or misleading statements when determining exemption applications under s 92(1)(b) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the claims assessor constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction by misconstruing the nature of his powers under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The claims assessor erred by determining the truth of the insurer's allegations of false or misleading statements, rather than confining himself to a preliminary evaluation of whether the claims were suitable for assessment. This constituted a jurisdictional error or failure to perform the correct statutory task under s 92(1)(b); hence, the decisions must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Order in the nature of certiorari granted; orders of claims assessor quashed and matter remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the fourth defendant made on 7 and 8 February 2018.
  • An order in the nature of mandamus remitting the matters to the third defendant for allocation to a different claims assessor to determine the plaintiff's exemption applications in accordance with law.