Cahill v Insurance Australia Limited (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 597

Cahill v Insurance Australia Limited (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 597

The statutory conditions for granting a Suitors Fund certificate were not engaged because, even assuming the Review Panel was a court and the judicial review proceedings were an appeal, the appeal was unsuccessful in the Supreme Court and the plaintiff as the moving party could not be equated with a respondent to an appeal. Section 6C did not assist because it concerns a discretion of the Director General, not a matter over which the Court has power to make an order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Suitors Fund Indemnity Certificate / In Chambers on the Papers After Dismissal of Judicial Review Proceedings and Adverse Costs Order
Outcome
Suitors Fund Certificate refused
Legal Topics
['suitors Fund Certificate' 'indemnity Certificate' 'judicial Review of Medical Review Panel Certificate' 'statutory Threshold' 'adverse Costs Order']
['costs' 'administrative Law'] ['suitors Fund Certificate' 'indemnity Certificate' 'judicial Review of Medical Review Panel Certificate' 'statutory Threshold' 'adverse Costs Order']

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

Application for Suitors Fund Indemnity Certificate / In Chambers on the Papers After Dismissal of Judicial Review Proceedings and Adverse Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff satisfied the statutory conditions for the grant of an indemnity certificate under s 6 of the Suitors Fund Act 1951 (NSW).' 'Whether s 6C(2) of the Suitors Fund Act 1951 (NSW) was a matter over which the Court had power to grant relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory conditions for granting a Suitors Fund certificate were not engaged because, even assuming the Review Panel was a court and the judicial review proceedings were an appeal, the appeal was unsuccessful in the Supreme Court and the plaintiff as the moving party could not be equated with a respondent to an appeal. Section 6C did not assist because it concerns a discretion of the Director General, not a matter over which the Court has power to make an order.

Court Disposition

Suitors Fund Certificate refused

Orders

  • ['Suitors Fund Certificate is refused.']