Price v Clearview Life Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] NSWSC 597

Price v Clearview Life Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] NSWSC 597

Clearview's request for a neuropsychological examination was justified because it served a legitimate purpose and the evidence likely to be obtained was material to disputed issues concerning Mr Price's future capacity for gainful employment and whether he should be assessed as totally and permanently disabled. Although Mr Price had valid concerns that an examination might harm him or prove unproductive, those concerns could be addressed by a structured protocol requiring consultation between medical practitioners, presentation requirements, and power for the examining practitioner to cancel if requirements were not met. The Registrar's decision was therefore substantially upheld and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Claimed Total and Permanent Disablement Benefits Under Insurance Policies / Review Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 49.20 of Registrar Walton's Decision Dated 10 March 2023 Concerning a Medical Examination
Outcome
Registrar Walton's decision of 10 March 2023 was varied only to the extent necessary to give effect to the Court's orders and was otherwise affirmed; the plaintiff's motion was otherwise dismissed; each party was ordered to bear his and its own costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
["review of Registrar's Decision" 'medical Examination of Plaintiff' 'total and Permanent Disablement Claim' 'neuropsychological Assessment' 'stay of Proceedings' 'presentation Requirements for Medical Examination']
['civil Procedure' 'insurance' 'equity'] ["review of Registrar's Decision" 'medical Examination of Plaintiff' 'total and Permanent Disablement Claim' 'neuropsychological Assessment' 'stay of Proceedings' 'presentation Requirements for Medical Examination']

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

Equity Proceedings Concerning Claimed Total and Permanent Disablement Benefits Under Insurance Policies / Review Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 49.20 of Registrar Walton's Decision Dated 10 March 2023 Concerning a Medical Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should order the plaintiff to undergo a medical examination under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 23.4 when the plaintiff claims a future examination may present a risk to his health and well-being.' "Whether Clearview's request for a neuropsychological examination was reasonable and for a legitimate purpose material to issues in dispute." "Whether the plaintiff's refusal to attend further neuropsychological assessment was reasonable in light of medical evidence about his condition and the prior aborted examination." 'What conditions or protocol should be imposed to minimise risk to the plaintiff and maximise the usefulness of any examination.']

Ratio Decidendi

Clearview's request for a neuropsychological examination was justified because it served a legitimate purpose and the evidence likely to be obtained was material to disputed issues concerning Mr Price's future capacity for gainful employment and whether he should be assessed as totally and permanently disabled. Although Mr Price had valid concerns that an examination might harm him or prove unproductive, those concerns could be addressed by a structured protocol requiring consultation between medical practitioners, presentation requirements, and power for the examining practitioner to cancel if requirements were not met. The Registrar's decision was therefore substantially upheld and...

Court Disposition

Registrar Walton's decision of 10 March 2023 was varied only to the extent necessary to give effect to the Court's orders and was otherwise affirmed; the plaintiff's motion was otherwise dismissed; each party was ordered to bear his and its own costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Order pursuant to UCPR, r 23.4 that the plaintiff undergo a medical examination by Associate Professor Richard Mattick.' "Note that the medical examination may also be carried by a psychologist of the second defendant's choice, but the name of such other psychologist should be communicated to the legal...