Legal Research
Cases
AAI Ltd v Hoblos

AAI Ltd v Hoblos

Case [2023] NSWPICMP 210 16 May 2023

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	AAI Limited t/as GIO v Hoblos [2023] NSWPICMP 210
CLAIMANT:	Raian Hoblos
INSURER:	AAI Ltd t/as GIO
REVIEW Panel
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	John Harris
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Atsumi Fukui
DATE OF DECISION:	16 May 2023
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act2017; threshold injury dispute for psychological injury; claimant involved in four separate motor accidents over short period; prior psychological history; discussion of common law and statutory principles of test of causation for psychological injury; rejection that principles in State Government Insurance Office v Oakley applied; Slade v Insurance Australia Ltd applied; reference to SIRA Motor Accidents Guidelines (Version 9.1, commencement on 1 April 2023) as to test for injury; Briggs v IAG Ltd (No 2) applied; observations by Windeyer J in Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch referred to; Held – claimant suffered threshold psychological injury; original assessment revoked.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	Medical Assessment – Threshold injury Review Panel Assessment of Threshold Injury Replacement Certificate issued under s 7.23(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act *2017* The Review Panel revokes the certificate dated 6 May 2022 and certifies that the psychological injury caused by the motor accident is a THRESHOLD INJURY for the purposes of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Raian Hoblos (the claimant) was involved in four motor accidents over a short period. The accidents occurred on 14 December 2020, 19 December 2020, 19 December 2020 and 3 January 2021.
The claimant was also involved in prior motor accidents in 2018 and November 2019.
The present proceedings relate to the second accident that occurred on 19 December 2020 (the motor accident). In the motor accident the insured vehicle tried to turn right and impacted into the passenger’s door of the claimant’s vehicle.[1] That accident occurred around 4 pm whist the earlier accident that day occurred around 2 pm.[2]
[1] Claimant’s bundle, p 62 and photographs, QBE bundle, p 1619.
[2] Claimant’s bundle, p 419.
The claimant alleges she also suffered injury in a subsequent motor vehicle accident on 3 January 2021 when the insured vehicle T-boned the claimant’s vehicle at speed (the subsequent motor accident).
AAI Ltd (GIO) insured the owner and driver of the other motor vehicle for liability to pay
Ms Hoblos any damages and/or statutory compensation entitlements under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act) for the motor accident.
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (QBE) is the insurer liable for the subsequent motor accident.
The issues presently in dispute are whether Ms Hoblos’ injury is classified as a “threshold injury” within the meaning of the MAI Act caused by the motor accident. There is also a medical dispute concerning whether the subsequent motor accident caused a threshold injury.
There is no claim for relief in these proceedings for the motor accidents that occurred on 14 December 2020 and the one occurring earlier in the day on 19 December 2020. To avoid uncertainty, these accidents are referred…

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 Ltd v Hoblos

Details

AGLC: AAI Limited t/as GIO v Hoblos [2023] NSWPICMP 210
Case: [2023] NSWPICMP 210
Decision Date: 16 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAI Limited, the insurer, brought an application to the Supreme Court of New South Wales to determine if a psychological injury suffered by Ms Hoblos met the threshold criteria for compensation under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. Ms Hoblos had been involved in four motor accidents within a short timeframe, with a prior history of psychological issues. The court needed to ascertain whether these injuries met the statutory definition of a "threshold injury" under the Act and whether the insurer was liable to provide compensation.

The court examined the statutory framework and case law to determine the test for causation of psychological injury in motor accident claims. It considered the principles set out in the SIRA Motor Accidents Guidelines (Version 9.1, commencement on 1 April 2023) and the applicability of common law principles. It rejected the argument that the principles in State Government Insurance Office v Oakley should apply, instead favouring the approach in Slade v Insurance Australia Ltd. The court also referred to Briggs v IAG Ltd (No 2) and the observations of Windeyer J in Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch. The decision hinged on whether Ms Hoblos's psychological injury was a "direct consequence" of the motor accidents, and whether these accidents were a "significant contributing factor" to her condition.

The court concluded that Ms Hoblos's psychological injury did meet the criteria for a threshold injury under the Act. The multiple motor accidents, occurring in a short period and coupled with her prior psychological history, were deemed to have a significant contribution to her current condition. Therefore, the insurer was found liable to provide compensation. The original assessment that revoked the claim was revoked by the court, and the insurer was ordered to pay compensation for the psychological injury sustained by Ms Hoblos.

Orders