Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: AAI Ltd t/as AAMI v Chan [2021] NSWCA 19 Hearing dates: 3 February 2021 Decision date: 25 February 2021 Before: Gleeson JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Emmett AJA at [83].Decision: 1. To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal, confined to grounds 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the notice of appeal.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. Set aside orders 1-3 made on 18 September 2020, and in lieu thereof, order that the summons filed on 28 April 2020 be dismissed with costs.
4. The first respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 62 - application for further assessment - proper officer not to order further assessment unless additional relevant information capable of having a material effect on outcome of previous assessment - further medical opinions covering similar ground to opinions previously considered - further medical opinions accepted to be additional relevant information - whether judicially reviewable error in proper officer’s decision that further medical opinions not capable of having material effect - need for identification of jurisdictional error or error of law on face of record - primary judge erred in finding reviewable error - appeal allowed and decision of proper officer restored
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 58, 61, 62, 63, 131
Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 69, 101
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.22, 59.4
Cases Cited: AAI Ltd trading as GIO as agent for the Nominal Defendant v McGiffen [2016] NSWCA 229; 77 MVR 348
Ali v AAI Ltd [2016] NSWCA 110; 75 MVR 502
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr (2012) 83 NSWLR 302; [2012] NSWCA 13
Bojko v ICM Property Service Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 175
Coordinated Construction Co Pty Ltd v Climatech (Canberra) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 229
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163; [1995] HCA 58
Gaynor v Attorney General of New South Wales (2020) 102 NSWLR 123; [2020] NSWCA 48
Jubb v Insurance Australia Ltd [2016] NSWCA 153; 76 MVR 228
Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1
Meeuwissen v Boden (2010) 78 NSWLR 143; [2010] NSWCA 253
Pham v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2014] NSWCA 22; 66 MVR 152
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Miller [2013] NSWCA 442; 67 MVR 322
Woolworths Ltd v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd (2004) 61 NSWLR 707; [2004] NSWCA 422
Category: Principal judgment Parties: AAI Ltd (Appellant)
Zion (Xun) Chan (First Respondent)
Tami O’Carroll in her capacity as a Proper Officer appointed by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Second Respondent)
State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Third Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
K Rewell SC (Appellant)
J Sexton SC, J Sleight (First Respondent)
Moray & Agnew (Appellant)
Neville Hourn & Bourg Legal (First Respondent)
Crown Solicitor’s Office…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read AAI Ltd t/as AAMI v Chan 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWCA 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the proper officer's decision constituted a reviewable error. Specifically, the court considered whether there was a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record, which would render the proper officer's decision amenable to judicial review.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the proper officer's decision involved an assessment of whether the further medical opinions were "additional relevant information" and whether this information was "capable of having a material effect on the outcome of the previous assessment." The court found that the primary judge had erred in concluding that the proper officer's decision was reviewable. The appeal judges held that the proper officer's assessment of the materiality of the additional information was a question of fact and degree, and that the primary judge had incorrectly substituted their own view for that of the proper officer. The court applied the principle that judicial review is generally concerned with the legality of a decision, not its merits, and that errors of law on the face of the record are required for review.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the primary judge were set aside. The summons filed by the respondent was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of both the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal, confined to grounds 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the notice of appeal.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. Set aside orders 1-3 made on 18 September 2020, and in lieu thereof, order that the summons filed on 28 April 2020 be dismissed with costs.
4. 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.