Devic v NRMA Insurance Ltd

The applicant, Devic, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent, NRMA Insurance Ltd, in which the Review Panel assessed the applicant's permanent impairment under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The assessment involved measuring the impairment of the applicant's injured shoulder using the contralateral uninjured shoulder as a baseline. Devic challenged the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Review Panel and argued that the Panel had failed to give procedural fairness due to insufficient transparency in the clinical findings regarding the applicant's injury to the cervical spine.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the Review Panel had made a jurisdictional error by considering irrelevant matters or by failing to exercise its jurisdiction. The applicant argued that the use of the contralateral uninjured shoulder as a baseline was inappropriate and that the reasons provided by the Review Panel were inadequate. The court had to consider whether the Review Panel had made an error of law on the face of the record and whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness due to insufficient transparency in the clinical findings.

The court held that the Review Panel had indeed made a jurisdictional error by considering irrelevant matters and failing to exercise its jurisdiction. The court found that the use of the contralateral uninjured shoulder as a baseline was inappropriate and that the reasons provided by the Review Panel were inadequate. The court also held that the applicant had been denied procedural fairness due to insufficient transparency in the clinical findings regarding the injury to the cervical spine. The court found that the Review Panel had not adequately considered the impact of the cervical spine injury on the applicant's shoulder impairment assessment. As a result, the court granted the applicant's application for judicial review and quashed the decision of the Review Panel.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Review Panel for reconsideration, with directions to properly consider the impact of the cervical spine injury on the applicant's shoulder impairment assessment and to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application.