Jake Thomas Burns v Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance [2018] NSWSC 18

Jake Thomas Burns v Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance [2018] NSWSC 18

The reasons given by the medical assessor for the determination of whole person impairment and by the proper officer for refusing review were adequate and legally sufficient. No legal error or misapplication of the statutory test was established; accordingly, judicial review was refused and the plaintiff's amended summons dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jake Thomas Burns; First Defendant: Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance; Second Defendant: State Insurance Regulatory Authority; Third Defendant: A Proper Officer appointed by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority for the Motor Accidents Medical Assessment Service; Fourth Defendant: A Medical Assessor appointed by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority for the Motor Accidents Medical Assessment Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment Trial Division
Outcome
Plaintiff's amended summons dismissed; costs to first defendant; leave granted to proceed out of time.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, Adequacy of Reasons, Medical Assessment, Review by Proper Officer
Administrative Law Judicial Review Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Adequacy of Reasons Medical Assessment Review by Proper Officer

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jake Thomas Burns

Plaintiff

Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance

First Defendant

State Insurance Regulatory Authority

Second Defendant

A Proper Officer appointed by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority for the Motor Accidents Medical Assessment Service

Third Defendant

A Medical Assessor appointed by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority for the Motor Accidents Medical Assessment Service

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment Trial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reasons provided by the medical assessor for assessing whole person impairment at 9% were legally inadequate and justified judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the proper officer misunderstood her statutory role or misapplied the test in s 63 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 concerning review of medical assessments

Ratio Decidendi

The reasons given by the medical assessor for the determination of whole person impairment and by the proper officer for refusing review were adequate and legally sufficient. No legal error or misapplication of the statutory test was established; accordingly, judicial review was refused and the plaintiff's amended summons dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's amended summons dismissed; costs to first defendant; leave granted to proceed out of time.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the plaintiff to institute the proceedings out of time.
  • The amended summons of the plaintiff filed in Court on 12 September 2017 is dismissed.