Legal Research
Cases
AAI Ltd trading as GIO v Moon

AAI Ltd trading as GIO v Moon

Link copied

Case Copied 11 June 2020 60 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AAI Ltd trading as GIO v Moon [2020] NSWSC 714
Hearing dates: 17 April 2020, supplementary written submissions closed 14 May 2020
Date of orders: 11 June 2020
Decision date: 11 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
(1) The summons filed on 23 October 2019 is dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Error of law on the face of the record – Jurisdictional error – Whether DRS claims assessor erred in law in construing the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), ss 8.3(4), 8.10(3) and (4) – Whether claims assessor erred in permitting payment of legal costs incurred by a claimant for statutory benefits where costs exceeded the maximum costs fixed by the regulations – No error of law in assessor’s determination

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) – Construction of ss 7.37(3), 7.42, 8.3(3) and (4), and 8.10 of the Act – Whether DRS may permit payment of reasonable and necessary legal costs incurred by claimant for statutory benefits where costs exceed the maximum fixed by the regulations

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) – Construction of s 8.10 and “incurred” in s 8.10(1)
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) – Construction of ss 8.3(3) and (4) – Application of maxim generalia specialibus non derogant
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)
Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Westpac Securities Administration Limited [2019] FCAFC 187; 373 ALR 455
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Fine (2014) 87 NSWLR 1; [2014] NSWCA 327
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Consolidated Media Holdings Limited (2012) 250 CLR 503; [2012] HCA 55
The Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405; [1905] HCA 11
Goodwin v Phillips (1908) 7 CLR 1 at 14; [1908] HCA 55
The Great Fingall Consolidated Ltd. v. Sheehan (1905) 3 CLR 176; [1905] HCA 43
Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones (2013) 249 CLR 493; [2013] HCA 35
Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell (2008) 236 CLR 101; [2008] HCA 38
Nilsen Development Laboratories Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 144 CLR 616; [1981] HCA 6
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Smith v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 338; [1994] HCA 60
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34
Webster v McIntosh [1980] FCA…

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 Ltd trading as GIO v Moon 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: [2020] NSWSC 714
Decision Date: 11 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, AAI Limited, trading as GIO, sought judicial review of a decision made by a claims assessor under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). The central dispute involved the assessor's interpretation of certain sections of the Act, specifically sections 8.3(4), 8.10(3), and (4), and whether the claims assessor erred in law by permitting the payment of legal costs incurred by the claimant for statutory benefits, where those costs exceeded the maximum amount fixed by the regulations. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the claims assessor erred in law by permitting the payment of legal costs that exceeded the statutory maximum and if there was any misinterpretation of the statutory provisions. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the claims assessor correctly applied the provisions of sections 8.3(4), 8.10(3), and (4) of the Act, and whether the term "incurred" in section 8.10(1) warranted a broader interpretation than the literal wording suggested. Additionally, the court examined the application of the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant to the statutory scheme.

The court found that the claims assessor did not err in law in their interpretation and application of the statutory provisions. The court held that the term "incurred" in section 8.10(1) should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, and the statutory framework did not permit the payment of legal costs exceeding the maximum set by the regulations. The court concluded that there was no jurisdictional error in the claims assessor's determination and dismissed the application for judicial review. As a result, the original decision of the claims assessor was upheld.

Orders