Legal Research
Cases
AAI Limited v Feng

AAI Limited v Feng

Case [2019] NSWSC 535 13 May 2019

Judicial Review

Causation

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AAI Limited v Feng [2019] NSWSC 535
Hearing dates: 9 May 2019
Decision date: 13 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
(1) Dismiss the amended summons.

(2) Order the plaintiff to pay the first defendant’s costs of the proceedings.
(3) Make no order as to the costs of the second defendant, with the intent that it bear its own costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – definition – whether “fault” is synonymous with liability or means, in the context of the tort of negligence, breach of duty – whether fault includes causation
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – application for mandatory and discretionary exemption from CARS assessment – no reasons required when discretionary exemption refused – reasons of claims assessor to be read fairly as a whole – no error established
Legislation Cited: Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 6, 11
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), Pt 4.4, Div 2, Pt 4.5, ss 3, 3A, 7A, 69, 72, 81, 92, 94, 106, 116, 117, 118, 122
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 59.3, 50.4
Cases Cited: Axiak v Ingram (2012) 82 NSWLR 36; [2012] NSWCA 311
IAG Limited t/a NRMA Insurance v Khaled [2019] NSWSC 320
IAG Limited t/a NRMA Insurance v Lou [2019] NSWSC 382
Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216; [2004] HCA 12
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40.
Sivas v Government Insurance Office (1990) 12 MVR 272
Smalley v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales (2013) 85 NSWLR 580; [2013] NSWCA 318
Texts Cited: Motor Accidents Authority, “Claims Assessment Guidelines”, 1 May 2014, Chs 14, 18, cll 1.6, 1.8, 1.13, 1.14, 8.11, 8.12, 14.11, 14.12, 14.13, 14.14, 14.15, 14.16
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: AAI Ltd ABN 48 005 297 807 t/as AAMI (Plaintiff)
Natasha Feng (First Defendant)
State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) (Second Defendant)
Marie Johns, the Principal Claims Assessor appointed by SIRA (Third Defendant)
Colin Stoten, the Claims Assessor appointed by SIRA (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Rewell SC (Plaintiff)
M Robinson SC/J Lucy (First Defendant)
S Free SC/ G Smith (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Alliance Compensation and Litigation Lawyers (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second, Third and Fourth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2018/391937

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiff, AAI Limited trading as AAMI (the Insurer), seeks to have two decisions made by assessors appointed by the second defendant, State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA), set aside on the basis of jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record. The effect of the two decisions was to decline the Insurer’s application to have the claim for damages made by the first defendant, Natasha Feng (the Claimant), exempted from assessment by Claims Assessment and Resolution Service (CARS). Had exemption been granted to the Insurer, the Claimant’s claim for damages would have been determined by a court.
The…

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.

Continue reading AAI Limited v Feng

Details

AGLC: AAI Ltd v Feng [2019] NSWSC 535
Case: [2019] NSWSC 535
Decision Date: 13 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of AAI Limited v Feng, the primary dispute involved the interpretation of the term "fault" within the context of statutory provisions relating to the tort of negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether "fault" was synonymous with liability or if it referred to the breach of duty in the tort of negligence. The dispute also included whether "fault" encompasses causation. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, the court had to interpret the statutory term "fault" to ascertain its precise meaning in the context of the tort of negligence. This involved examining whether "fault" included elements beyond mere breach of duty, such as causation. Secondly, the court needed to consider the procedural aspect of the administrative law context, specifically whether reasons are required when a discretionary exemption from the CARS assessment is refused. The court was required to determine whether the reasons provided by the claims assessor were adequate when read fairly as a whole.

The court ruled that the term "fault" in the given statutory context should be interpreted to encompass more than just the breach of duty, but also included causation. The court found that the statutory definition of "fault" was not limited to the narrower concept of liability but rather extended to include the broader concept of breach of duty in the tort of negligence. Regarding the administrative law issue, the court held that when a discretionary exemption from the CARS assessment is refused, no reasons are required. However, the reasons provided by the claims assessor must be read fairly as a whole, and the court found no error in the assessment when interpreted in this manner.

The final orders of the court were that the interpretation of "fault" in the context of the tort of negligence includes causation, and that the claims assessor's reasons, when read fairly as a whole, were sufficient. The court did not establish any error in the claims assessor's decision, thereby upholding the administrative action taken.

Orders