Tan v Basaga [2011] NSWSC 1319

Tan v Basaga [2011] NSWSC 1319

The evidence relied on by the defendant, including updated information on share trading and associated expert reports, did not constitute 'significant evidence' as defined in s.111(3) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 because the nature and extent of share trading and related financial information were disclosed and considered in the initial claims assessment. Further, medical expert evidence did not establish that such material would have materially affected the claims assessor’s determination. Therefore, the application to adjourn and remit the matter for further assessment was dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Soo Pin Tan; Defendant: Lorima Basaga
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Torts – Personal Injury (motor Vehicle Accident) / Ruling on Application Under S.111 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (interlocutory)
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 S.111, Claims Assessment, Significant Evidence, Economic Loss, Psychiatric Injury
Torts Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accident Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 S.111 Claims Assessment Significant Evidence Economic Loss Psychiatric Injury

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soo Pin Tan

Plaintiff

Lorima Basaga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Torts – Personal Injury (motor Vehicle Accident) / Ruling on Application Under S.111 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether matter should be remitted for further claims assessment under s.111 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 in light of alleged significant new evidence
  2. 2 Whether evidence regarding share trading constituted significant new evidence
  3. 3 Whether implication derived from treating psychiatrist constituted significant new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence relied on by the defendant, including updated information on share trading and associated expert reports, did not constitute 'significant evidence' as defined in s.111(3) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 because the nature and extent of share trading and related financial information were disclosed and considered in the initial claims assessment. Further, medical expert evidence did not establish that such material would have materially affected the claims assessor’s determination. Therefore, the application to adjourn and remit the matter for further assessment was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion filed 2 November 2011 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the Notice of Motion reserved.