Connors v Nominal Defendant (No 3) [2020] NSWDC 437

Connors v Nominal Defendant (No 3) [2020] NSWDC 437

The defendant's further application was refused because the plaintiff already had a Medical Assessment Service assessment crossing the statutory threshold for claiming non-economic loss, competing psychiatric opinions did not of themselves justify referral back to the Medical Assessment Service, and the defendant's delay in pursuing review would likely only delay determination of the proceedings without sufficient practical reason.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Claim Under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 / Procedural Ruling on the Defendant's Further Application to Adjourn or Vacate the Hearing and Return the Matter to the Medical Assessment Service
Outcome
Adjournment application refused; further application to refer the matter back to the Medical Assessment Service refused.
Legal Topics
['medical Assessment Service' 'whole Person Impairment' 'non Economic Loss Threshold' 'adjournment Application' 'competing Medical Opinions']
['motor Accidents Compensation' 'personal Injury' 'civil Procedure'] ['medical Assessment Service' 'whole Person Impairment' 'non Economic Loss Threshold' 'adjournment Application' 'competing Medical Opinions']

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

Civil Personal Injury Claim Under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 / Procedural Ruling on the Defendant's Further Application to Adjourn or Vacate the Hearing and Return the Matter to the Medical Assessment Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proceeding should be adjourned or the hearing vacated so the plaintiff's whole person impairment could be returned to the Medical Assessment Service for further determination." "Whether competing psychiatric assessments and the defendant's dissatisfaction with the existing Medical Assessment Service assessment justified referral back to the Medical Assessment Service."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's further application was refused because the plaintiff already had a Medical Assessment Service assessment crossing the statutory threshold for claiming non-economic loss, competing psychiatric opinions did not of themselves justify referral back to the Medical Assessment Service, and the defendant's delay in pursuing review would likely only delay determination of the proceedings without sufficient practical reason.

Court Disposition

Adjournment application refused; further application to refer the matter back to the Medical Assessment Service refused.

Orders

  • ['The further application to have the matter referred back to the Medical Assessment Service is refused.']