Mandoukos v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2023] NSWSC 1023

Mandoukos v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2023] NSWSC 1023

The medical assessor did not err in law or deny procedural fairness by failing to address the plaintiff's consequential injury submissions, because these arguments were not put to the assessor and there was no evidence regarding the specifics of the surgery constituting a non-minor injury; the assessment and reasons given were legally sufficient and addressed the submissions that were actually made.

Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholas Mandoukos; First Defendant: Allianz Australia Insurance Limited; Second Defendant: President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales; Third Defendant: Assem Mohammed in his capacity as a Medical Assessor of the Personal Injury Commission of NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed; extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Motor Accident Injuries, Medical Assessment, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Personal Injury Judicial Review Motor Accident Injuries Medical Assessment Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Mandoukos

Plaintiff

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited

First Defendant

President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales

Second Defendant

Assem Mohammed in his capacity as a Medical Assessor of the Personal Injury Commission of NSW

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the medical assessor failed to consider whether surgery constituted a non-minor injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the medical assessor failed to apply the lawful test of causation regarding consequential injuries
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness by not responding to submissions about surgery

Ratio Decidendi

The medical assessor did not err in law or deny procedural fairness by failing to address the plaintiff's consequential injury submissions, because these arguments were not put to the assessor and there was no evidence regarding the specifics of the surgery constituting a non-minor injury; the assessment and reasons given were legally sufficient and addressed the submissions that were actually made.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed; extension of time granted.

Orders

  • Order, pursuant to r 59.10(1) of the UCPR, the time for filing of the summons in this Court be extended until 8 December 2022.
  • Order the amended summons filed 22 February 2023 be dismissed.