AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Pearce - [2024] NSWSC 357

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Pearce [2024] NSWSC 357
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 08 April 2024
Decision date: 08 April 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) The plaintiff has leave to file its amended summons dated 22 March 2024.
(2) The decision of the second defendant (per Member David Ford) and third defendant, the Personal Injury Commission of NSW, (“PIC”), dated 9 November 2023 in PIC matter no. M10464655/21 is invalid and is set aside.
(3) The subject matter of the decision is remitted to the third defendant for determination by a different Member according to law.
(4) The parties are to file and serve written submissions as to costs, (not more than 3 pages in length) on or before 15 April 2024.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – motor accident compensation – submitting appearances by the defendants – error of law on the face of the record – inadequate reasons

Legislation Cited:
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)
Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr (2012) 83 NSWLR 302; [2012] NSWCA 13

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: AAI Limited t/as AAMI (Plaintiff)
Luke Pearce (First Defendant)
David Ford, in his capacity as a Member appointed by the Minister under section 9 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW) (Second Defendant)
The President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Robinson SC and Dr Juliet Lucy (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Burgan Lawyers (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second & Third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2023/00463596
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, AAMI, seeks relief in the nature of certiorari or a declaration pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), setting aside or declaring invalid a decision made by Member David Ford on 9 November 2023.
The amended summons dated 22 March 2024 is supported by evidence filed in the form of the 9 November 2023 statement of reasons and certificate of Member Ford.
The issues can be dealt with in short form as each defendant has filed a submitting appearance, save as to costs. I have refrained from making any order as to costs and have made provision for written submissions on the question of costs.
Given that I am exercising the Court’s jurisdiction under s 69 of the Act, it is appropriate that I provide a judgment setting out my reasons for making the orders sought by AAMI.

Background facts

Mr Pearce was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 3 November 2018. At the time he was on a motorcycle and was hit by a car insured by AAMI. He suffered injuries including to his right knee and hand, scarring, and a psychological injury.
He was at the time a chartered accountant in partnership with a Mr Ghenim (“the Business”). Mr Pearce had a period off work…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Pearce and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWSC 357
Decision Date: 08 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, AAI Limited, trading as AAMI, commenced proceedings against Mr. Pearce, seeking a review of a decision made by the Motor Accident Authority (MAA). The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Motor Accident (Compensation) Act 1999, specifically regarding the authority's decision to grant Mr. Pearce compensation following a motor accident. The court was asked to determine whether the MAA's decision was lawful and whether the Authority had adequately considered the relevant provisions of the Act.

The central legal issue was whether the MAA's decision contained an error of law apparent on the face of the record, which would warrant judicial intervention. AAI argued that the MAA had failed to properly consider Mr. Pearce's capacity to work and his ability to earn income, and that the reasons provided for the decision were inadequate. The court needed to assess the sufficiency of the reasons given by the MAA and determine whether the error of law was manifest enough to require setting aside the decision.

In addressing the legal issues, the court held that the MAA's decision was indeed flawed due to an error of law on the face of the record. The court found that the MAA had not properly considered Mr. Pearce's capacity to work, which was a critical factor in determining his entitlement to compensation. The reasons provided by the MAA were insufficient and did not adequately address the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court determined that the decision should be quashed and remitted to the MAA for reconsideration in light of the correct legal principles.

The court ordered that the decision of the Motor Accident Authority be quashed and the matter be remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The court did not make any orders as to costs.

Orders