QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Gerald Polorotov [2017] NSWSC 1266

QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Gerald Polorotov [2017] NSWSC 1266

The Claims Assessor did not err in law, provided adequate reasons outlining the actual path of reasoning, did not deny procedural fairness, and was entitled to find that there was no evidence of realistic alternative employment for Mr Polorotov in his locality; thus, all grounds of judicial review failed.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited; First Defendant: Gerald Polorotov; Second Defendant: State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA); Third Defendant: Thomas Goudkamp (in his capacity as claims assessor appointed by SIRA)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Orders
Outcome
Judicial review dismissed; costs to the first defendant
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw), Assessment of Damages, Residual Earning Capacity, Procedural Fairness, Adequacy of Reasons
Administrative Law Judicial Review Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw) Assessment of Damages Residual Earning Capacity Procedural Fairness Adequacy of Reasons

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

Plaintiff

Gerald Polorotov

First Defendant

State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA)

Second Defendant

Thomas Goudkamp (in his capacity as claims assessor appointed by SIRA)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claims Assessor erred in law in finding there was no exercisable residual earning capacity
  2. 2 Whether the Claims Assessor failed to explain the actual path of reasoning by which he reached his conclusion
  3. 3 Whether the Claims Assessor failed to engage with the insurer's argument regarding residual earning capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The Claims Assessor did not err in law, provided adequate reasons outlining the actual path of reasoning, did not deny procedural fairness, and was entitled to find that there was no evidence of realistic alternative employment for Mr Polorotov in his locality; thus, all grounds of judicial review failed.

Court Disposition

Judicial review dismissed; costs to the first defendant

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review fails.
  • The summons filed 1 June 2017 is dismissed.