AAI Limited trading as GIO v Amos

Link copied
Case Copied 50 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AAI Limited trading as GIO v Amos [2024] NSWCA 65
Hearing dates: 18 March 2024
Decision date: 26 March 2024
Before: Kirk JA at [1];
Adamson JA at [2];
Basten AJA at [74]
Decision:

(1)   Allow the appeal.

(2)   Set aside the orders made by Rothman J on 6 October 2023 and in lieu thereof, make the following orders:

(a)   Dismiss the amended summons.

(b)   Order the plaintiff to pay the first defendant’s costs.

(3)   Order the first respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — procedural fairness — decision of medical review panel made pursuant to Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) regarding percentage whole body impairment suffered by claimant in motor accident — decision quashed at first instance based on a denial of procedural fairness to the claimant — whether primary judge erred in finding procedural fairness was denied — content of procedural fairness obligations owed by a medical review panel as compared to a court or tribunal

Legislation Cited:

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), ss 4.11, 4.12, 7.20, 7.21, 7.23, 7.26, Div 7.5, Div 10.2, clause 2 Schedule 1

Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW), ss 5, 33, 43

Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (NSW), rr 5, 127

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 69, 101

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1

Cases Cited:

Amos v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2023] NSWSC 1193

British Imperial Oil Company Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1925) 35 CLR 422

Browne v Dunn (1983) 6 R 67 (HL)

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 77 ALJR 1088

Frost v Kourouche (2014) 86 NSWLR 214; [2014] NSWCA 39

Insurance Australia Group Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Keen [2021] NSWCA 287

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; [1985] HCA 81

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21

Minister for Immigration v SZGUR (2011) 241 CLR 594; [2011] HCA 1

Moses v Parker; Ex parte Moses [1896] AC 245 (PC)

R v Electricity Commissioners; Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co (1920) Ltd [1924] 1 KB 171

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60; 77 ALJR 1909

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 6

Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462; [1999] HCA 30

SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152; [2006] HCA 63

SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26; (2007) 81 ALJR 1190

Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43

Texts Cited:

American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition

State Insurance Regulatory Authority, Motor Accident Guidelines

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: AAI Limited trading as…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AAI Limited trading as GIO v Amos 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] NSWCA 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAI Limited trading as GIO (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales against a decision of Rothman J. The primary judge had quashed a decision of a medical review panel made under the *Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017* (NSW) concerning the percentage of whole body impairment suffered by Mr Amos (the first respondent) as a result of a motor accident. The quashing was based on a finding that Mr Amos had been denied procedural fairness.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in finding that procedural fairness had been denied to Mr Amos by the medical review panel. This required the court to consider the nature and content of the procedural fairness obligations owed by a medical review panel established under the Act, in contrast to the obligations typically owed by a court or a more formal tribunal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the primary judge's orders. The court reasoned that the medical review panel's obligations in relation to procedural fairness were not as extensive as those owed by a court or tribunal. The panel had provided Mr Amos with sufficient opportunity to present his case and had considered the material before it. The court concluded that the primary judge had erred in applying a standard of procedural fairness that was too stringent for the context of a medical review panel operating under the specific legislative framework. Consequently, the amended summons was dismissed, and Mr Amos was ordered to pay GIO's costs at first instance, with GIO ordered to pay Mr Amos's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Allow the appeal.

(2) Set aside the orders made by Rothman J on 6 October 2023 and in lieu thereof, make the following orders:

(a) Dismiss the amended summons.

(b) Order the plaintiff to pay the first defendant’s costs.

(3) Order the first respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.