Basten JA at [1]; Leeming JA at [74]; Simpson JA at [100]
Decision:
(1) Allow the appeal and set aside orders 2-5 made in the Common Law Division on 4 August 2015.
(2) In place thereof dismiss the summons filed on 28 January 2014.
(3) Order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the first defendant (Abbas Ibrahim Ali) in the Common Law Division.
(4) Order that the first respondent (AAI Ltd) pay the appellant’s cost in this Court.
Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – motor vehicle accident – review of certificate of medical assessor – scope of statutory duty to give reasons – extent of reference to large volume of material supplied by parties – relevant consideration – obligation to consider matters identified by statute – obligation to consider material supplied by parties – irrelevant consideration – whether “unreliable” evidence to be completely disregarded
TORTS – motor vehicle accident – assessment of damages – claim for non-economic loss – certificate as to degree of permanent impairment – assessment by medical assessor – operation of Part 3.4, Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
STATUTES – legal status of Motor Accident Authority Guidelines – whether the Guidelines have the force of delegated legislation – whether a breach of the Guidelines amounts to judicially reviewable error
M Aronson and M Groves, Judicial Review of Administration Action (2013, LawBook Co, 5th ed), [5.20]-[5.40]
M Robinson, Judicial Review – The Laws of Australia (2014, Thomson Reuters), [2.4.1190]ff; [2.4.1030]ff
O Jones, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (6th ed 2013, LexisNexis)
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Abbas…
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 Ali v AAI Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ali v AAI Limited [2016] NSWCA 110
Case
[2016] NSWCA 110
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Ali v AAI Limited* concerned a judicial review of a certificate issued by a medical assessor regarding the degree of permanent impairment of the plaintiff, Abbas Ibrahim Ali, following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff sought to challenge the certificate, which was issued under Part 3.4 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW), arguing that the medical assessor had failed to properly consider relevant material and had taken irrelevant considerations into account. The primary dispute revolved around the scope of the statutory duty to provide reasons for the assessor's decision and the extent to which reference to a large volume of supplied material satisfied this obligation.
The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider the scope of the statutory duty imposed on a medical assessor to give reasons for their certificate, particularly in relation to the extent to which reference to a large volume of material supplied by the parties constituted adequate reasons. Secondly, the court examined the obligation to consider matters identified by the statute and material supplied by the parties, and conversely, the prohibition against considering irrelevant material. Finally, the court addressed whether "unreliable" evidence was to be completely disregarded by the medical assessor. The legal status of the Motor Accident Authority Guidelines and whether a breach of these Guidelines amounted to judicially reviewable error were also central to the determination.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders made in the Common Law Division. The court found that the medical assessor's reasons were inadequate and that the assessor had failed to properly consider the material before them. The court held that a mere reference to a large volume of documents was not sufficient to discharge the duty to give reasons, and that the assessor was obliged to engage with the substance of the evidence. The court also determined that the Motor Accident Authority Guidelines did not have the force of delegated legislation, but that a breach of the Guidelines could nonetheless constitute a ground for judicial review if it indicated an error of law. Consequently, the summons filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, and orders were made regarding the costs of the proceedings in both the Common Law Division and the Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Allow the appeal and set aside orders 2-5 made in the Common Law Division on 4 August 2015.
(2) In place thereof dismiss the summons filed on 28 January 2014.
(3) Order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the first defendant (Abbas Ibrahim Ali) in the Common Law Division.
(4) Order that the first respondent (AAI Ltd) pay the appellant’s cost in this Court.