Barnes v AAI Limited t/as GIO - [2023] NSWPICMR 9

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MERIT REVIEWER
Citation:	Barnes v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2023] NSWPICMR 9
ClaimanT:	Alma Barnes
Insurer:	AAI Limited t/as GIO
Merit Reviewer:	Ray Plibersek
DATE OF DECISION:	17 February 2023
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; merit review; claim for “reasonable and necessary” legal costs for minor injury dispute and medical review panel; claim for two amounts of maximum regulated legal costs under sections 8.3 and 8.10; Held – claimant awarded regulated legal costs for minor injury dispute of $1660 plus GST; awarded $830 plus GST for medical review panel; claimant’s solicitors did not provide an adequate detailed description or itemisation of the legal work done by them on the two disputes to support a finding justifying two amounts of maximum costs being awarded; parties unable to resolve a dispute over small amount; dispute is in stark contrast to the exhortations contained in the objects of the Motor Accident Injuries Act and section 42 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 which encourages the early resolution of claims and the quick, cost effective and just resolution of disputes; parties have not acted in a way that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the small amount of legal costs in dispute; Personal Injury Commission required to divert its scarce resources to deal with a dispute about a small amount of legal cost.
Determinations made:	Certificate Issued under s 7.13(4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act2017 The insurer is to pay the claimant’s reasonable and necessary legal costs assessed at $2,490, plus GST of $249, totalling $2,739 for solicitors professional legal services for the minor injury dispute invoice dated 18 May 2022 in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017.

BACKGROUND

The claimant, Ms Alma Barnes, was injured in a motor car accident on 12 February 2019. The parties have not supplied details in this application for review of how the motor accident occurred nor the nature of Ms Barnes’ injuries.
In this case there is a dispute between the claimant and the insurer about the payment of her legal costs. The claimant’s solicitors are seeking payment of an invoice dated 18 May 2022 totalling $3,652 (inclusive of GST) for a minor injury dispute and a review by a Medical Review Panel, (A 1).
This current merit review is a dispute about whether legal costs incurred by the claimant in respect of the primary minor injury dispute and medical review proceedings were “reasonable and necessary”.
In legal terms, the issues for determination are whether under ss 8.3 and 8.10 of the MAI Act, costs and expenses incurred by the claimant are reasonable and necessary.
The claimant’s solicitors issued a tax invoice dated 18 May 2022 for the minor injury medical dispute and medical review. The invoice was addressed to the insurer and claimed a total of $3,652 (inclusive of GST) for professional legal costs. There was a claim for $1,660 (plus GST) for…

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 Barnes v AAI Limited t/as GIO 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: [2023] NSWPICMR 9
Decision Date: 17 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barnes v AAI Limited t/as GIO involved a dispute over the entitlement to "reasonable and necessary" legal costs in a minor injury claim under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The claimant, Barnes, sought compensation for legal costs incurred during a minor injury dispute and a medical review panel. The dispute centred on whether Barnes was entitled to two amounts of maximum regulated legal costs under sections 8.3 and 8.10 of the Act. The matter was before the Personal Injury Commission of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether Barnes was entitled to claim two separate amounts of maximum regulated legal costs for two different stages of the dispute: the minor injury dispute and the medical review panel. The key issue was whether Barnes’ solicitors had provided an adequate detailed description or itemisation of the legal work done to justify separate maximum costs for each stage of the dispute. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the parties had acted in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Motor Accident Injuries Act and the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, which emphasise the early resolution of claims and the cost-effective resolution of disputes.

The court found that Barnes’ solicitors had not provided a sufficient detailed description or itemisation of the legal work done on the two disputes to justify awarding two amounts of maximum costs. The court highlighted that the parties had been unable to resolve a dispute over a relatively small amount of money, which was contrary to the objectives of the Motor Accident Injuries Act and the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020. The court concluded that the Personal Injury Commission should not be required to divert its scarce resources to deal with such a minor dispute. As a result, Barnes was awarded regulated legal costs of $1660 plus GST for the minor injury dispute and $830 plus GST for the medical review panel.

The court's decision underscored the importance of proportionality in legal cost disputes and the need for parties to act in a manner that aligns with the legislative objectives of cost-effective and timely dispute resolution. The court's ruling effectively limited the amount of legal costs Barnes could claim, reinforcing the need for detailed documentation to support such claims.

Orders