Stone v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2018] NSWSC 34

Stone v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2018] NSWSC 34

The Proper Officer's determination was affected by error apparent on the face of the record because it relied on Singh in rejecting Mr Stone's s 62 application, did not refer to or apply the nuanced approach required by Jubb, and the defendants appropriately conceded that the error required re-determination. The determination was therefore void, set aside, and remitted to the second defendant for determination by a different proper officer according to law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Motor Accident Medical Assessment Determination Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / On the Papers; Principal Judgment Following Submitting Appearances and Consent Orders
Outcome
Application granted; determination declared void and set aside; matter remitted for determination by a different proper officer; each party to pay their own costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'further Medical Assessment' 'whole Person Impairment' 'proper Officer Determinations']
['administrative Law' 'motor Accident Compensation'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'further Medical Assessment' 'whole Person Impairment' 'proper Officer Determinations']

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

Judicial Review of Motor Accident Medical Assessment Determination Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / On the Papers; Principal Judgment Following Submitting Appearances and Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Proper Officer's determination refusing a further medical assessment under s 62 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) involved jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record." 'Whether the Proper Officer wrongly applied Singh v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 1443 and Alavanja v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1182 instead of the approach stated in Jubb v Insurance Australia Ltd [2016] NSWCA 153.' "Whether the determination failed to give adequate reasons showing the path of reasoning and failed to engage with the claimant's submissions."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Proper Officer's determination was affected by error apparent on the face of the record because it relied on Singh in rejecting Mr Stone's s 62 application, did not refer to or apply the nuanced approach required by Jubb, and the defendants appropriately conceded that the error required re-determination. The determination was therefore void, set aside, and remitted to the second defendant for determination by a different proper officer according to law.

Court Disposition

Application granted; determination declared void and set aside; matter remitted for determination by a different proper officer; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • ['A declaration pursuant to the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 69 that the determination and statement of reasons issued by the second defendant constituted by the third defendant on 24 March 2017 is void and of no effect.' 'The determination and statement of reasons issued on 24 March 2017 is set aside.' 'The...