QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Volokhova [2014] NSWSC 726

QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Volokhova [2014] NSWSC 726

The CARS Assessor did not fail to take into account relevant considerations, complied with s 126, and provided sufficient reasons; the assessment of a $500,000 buffer for future economic loss was not manifestly excessive given uncertainties about Mrs Volokhova's career path, qualifications, likelihood of legal employment, and potential recovery. Judicial review grounds failed.

Parties
Plaintiff: QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd; First Defendant: Oksana Volokhova; Second Defendant: Josephine Snell; Third Defendant: Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Motor Accidents Compensation Act, Future Economic Loss, Assessment of Damages, Adequate Reasons
Administrative Law Personal Injury Judicial Review Motor Accidents Compensation Act Future Economic Loss Assessment of Damages Adequate Reasons

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd

Plaintiff

Oksana Volokhova

First Defendant

Josephine Snell

Second Defendant

Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages for future economic loss of earnings were excessive
  2. 2 Whether CARS Assessor failed to give adequate reasons
  3. 3 Whether CARS Assessor complied with s 126 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The CARS Assessor did not fail to take into account relevant considerations, complied with s 126, and provided sufficient reasons; the assessment of a $500,000 buffer for future economic loss was not manifestly excessive given uncertainties about Mrs Volokhova's career path, qualifications, likelihood of legal employment, and potential recovery. Judicial review grounds failed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • The summons filed 1 October 2013 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.