Campbell v AAI Limited t/as GIO - [2017] NSWSC 560

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Campbell v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2017] NSWSC 560
Hearing dates: 15 July 2016
Date of orders: 15 July 2016
Decision date: 08 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) An order in the nature of certiorari removing to this Court and quashing the whole of the decision of Jane Probert, Proper Officer of the Medical Assessment Service of the MAA, dated 19 November 2015, purportedly made under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999;

(2) An order in the nature of prohibition enjoining the defendants, or any of their officers, servants or agents, from acting on or taking any further steps in relation to the decision;

(3) An order in the nature of mandamus remitting the matters the subject of the decision to the second defendant for reallocation of the matter to a different Proper Officer for determination according to law;
(4) Each party bear his or its own costs in these proceedings.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – reasons for grant of orders – decision of proper officer of Motor Accidents Authority/State Insurance Regulatory Authority – additional relevant information – refusal to address statement – denial of procedural fairness – decision based on no probative material – error of law
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Henderson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 480
Mullin v CIC Allianz Australia Ltd and Anor [2015] NSWSC 831
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW [2013] NSWSC 549; (2013) 67 MVR 322
Rodger v De Gelder (2011) 80 NSWLR 594; [2011] NSWCA 97
Singh v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 550
Singh v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 1443
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Grahame Luke Campbell (Plaintiff)
AAI Limited t/as GIO (ABN 48 005 297 807) (First Defendant)
State Insurance Regulatory Authority of New South Wales (formerly Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales) (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Perry (Plaintiff)
J Gumbert (First Defendant)
Submitting appearance (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Fishburn Watson O’Brien (Plaintiff)
Curwood Lawyers (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/00030267

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By summons, the plaintiff Graeme Luke Campbell sought orders in the nature of certiorari or, alternatively, a declaration, having the effect of setting aside or declaring invalid, the whole of a decision of the Proper Officer of the Medical Assessment Service (“MAS”) of the Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales (“MAA”), which decision was dated 19 November 2015. Ancillary to the orders in the nature of certiorari or declarations, are orders in the nature of prohibition, or, alternatively, an injunction and/or orders in the nature of mandamus respectively, preventing any further steps consequent upon the impugned decision and requiring the MAA to reallocate the matter to a different Proper Officer for determination in accordance with law.
Since the filing of the summons the name of the second defendant altered from…

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 Campbell 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: [2017] NSWSC 560
Decision Date: 08 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v AAI Limited t/as GIO concerns an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Motor Accidents Authority/State Insurance Regulatory Authority (MAA/SIRA). The applicant, Campbell, sought to challenge the MAA/SIRA's decision to refuse a claim for additional relevant information in the context of a motor accident claim. The respondent, AAI Limited trading as GIO, defended the decision on the basis that it was made by a proper officer and was not subject to judicial review.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the MAA/SIRA's decision was based on relevant considerations and whether it accorded with the principles of procedural fairness. Campbell argued that the decision to refuse additional relevant information was flawed as it was based on no probative material and, therefore, constituted an error of law. Additionally, Campbell contended that the refusal to address the additional information deprived them of procedural fairness.

The court, in its judgment, held that the MAA/SIRA's decision was indeed subject to judicial review and was flawed. The court found that the decision was not based on any probative material and therefore constituted an error of law. Furthermore, the court determined that the refusal to address the additional information denied Campbell procedural fairness. As a result, the court quashed the decision of the MAA/SIRA and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

In conclusion, the court's decision in this case underscores the importance of ensuring that decisions made by administrative bodies are based on relevant considerations and accord with the principles of procedural fairness. The court's judgment serves as a reminder to administrative bodies that decisions must be made on a sound evidentiary basis and that opportunities for parties to be heard must be afforded. The final orders of the court were to quash the decision of the MAA/SIRA and remit the matter for reconsideration.

Orders