Legal Research
Cases
Dimos v Gordian Runoff Ltd

Dimos v Gordian Runoff Ltd

Case [2023] NSWSC 1151 22 September 2023

Judicial Review

Reasons for Decision

Adequacy of Reasons

Discretion According to Law

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dimos v Gordian Runoff Limited [2023] NSWSC 1151
Hearing dates: 10 August 2023
Date of orders: 22 September 2023
Decision date: 22 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
1 For the reasons given I now order that the delegate’s decision be set aside.
2 The parties should confer about the other orders which should be made. In the event of any dispute, short submissions about those orders should also be filed within 14 days.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) — insurer’s s 62 application for further assessment after earlier medical assessment made after Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW) came into force — insurer successfully applied for further assessment — operation of transitional provisions of Personal Injury Commission Act — clause 14D of Sch 1 — whether application in respect of unexercised right — whether delegate of President of Personal Injury Commission was obliged to give reasons for decision — reasons required — whether delegate gave adequate reasons — reasons inadequate — whether delegate formed opinion according to law — whether discretion exercised according to law — errors established
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Commencement of proceedings — Summons — whether summons complied with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 59.4(c) in specifying error of law or jurisdictional error — grounds advanced included that delegate’s reasons were inadequate — requirement to give reasons disputed — operation of transitional provisions raised as a result — summons compliant

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2013 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act1999 (NSW), Ch 3, Pt 3.4, ss 43, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63
Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)
Personal Injury Commission Act2020 (NSW), Pt 2, Divs 2, 3, 4, 4A, 4B, 5, ss 3, 5, Sch 1, cll 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F
Personal Injury Commission Bill 2020 (NSW)
Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (NSW)
State Insurance Regulatory Authority Medical Assessment Guidelines
Supreme Court Act1970 (NSW), s 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.1, 59.4
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 (NSW), s 327

Cases Cited:
AAI Ltd t/as AAMI v Chan [2021] NSWCA 19
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Avon Downs Pty Ltd v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353; [1949] HCA 26
Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110; [1976] HCA 24
Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2021] NSWCA 71
Dominice v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2017] NSWCA 171
Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123; [2018] HCA 34
Joseph v NSW Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCA 31
Jubb v Insurance Australia Ltd [2016] NSWCA 153
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32; (2004)…

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 Dimos v Gordian Runoff Ltd

Details

AGLC: Dimos v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1151
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1151
Decision Date: 22 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dimos v Gordian Runoff Ltd involved the plaintiff, Dimos, challenging a decision made by a delegate of the President of the Personal Injury Commission under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The dispute arose when the insurer, Gordian Runoff Ltd, applied for a further assessment of Dimos's claim under section 62 of the Act. This application was made after the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW) came into effect. The key issues before the court were whether the delegate was required to give reasons for their decision, whether the reasons provided were adequate, and if the decision was made according to law.

The court had to determine whether the delegate of the President of the Personal Injury Commission was obliged to give reasons for their decision under the transitional provisions outlined in clause 14D of Schedule 1 of the Personal Injury Commission Act. The court found that the delegate was indeed required to give reasons, and that the reasons provided were inadequate. The court held that the requirement to give reasons was not disputed, and thus, the decision was flawed. The court further examined whether the delegate formed their opinion according to law and whether the discretion was exercised according to law, finding that errors had indeed been established.

The court concluded that the delegate’s failure to provide adequate reasons constituted a jurisdictional error, and the decision was therefore quashed. The court also noted that the summons filed by Dimos complied with rule 59.4(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), as it specified an error of law or a jurisdictional error, including the requirement to give reasons.

The final orders included a quashing of the delegate's decision and a remittal to the delegate for reconsideration, ensuring that adequate reasons were provided in line with the legal requirements. The court also made orders for costs, which were to be assessed if not agreed upon by the parties.

Orders