Legal Research
Cases
Doyle v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

Doyle v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

Case [2021] NSWSC 54 8 February 2021

Judicial Review

Denial of Procedural Fairness

Review of Decisions

Adequate Reasons

Findings Unsupported by Evidence

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Doyle v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2021] NSWSC 54
Hearing dates: 2 October 2020
Date of orders: 8 February 2021
Decision date: 08 February 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Administrative Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1) The plaintiff’s summons filed 17 December 2019 is dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs on an ordinary basis.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – State Insurance Regulatory Authority – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – Review of decisions of the Medical Assessor and Proper Officer – Denial of procedural fairness – Findings unsupported by evidence – Failure to provide adequate reasons – Review dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 57, 58, 60 to 63, 131 and 133
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

Cases Cited:
AAI Limited t/as GIO as agent for the Nominal Defendant v McGiffen [2016] NSWCA 229
Bradley v Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance [2015] NSWSC 950
Cahill v Insurance Australia Limited [2009] NSWSC 564
Collector of Customs v Pozzolianic [1993] FCA 322; 43 FCR 280
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 579; [1994] FCA 1074
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 148
Dunbar v Allianz Australia Limited [2015] NSWSC 119
Ejueyitsi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 151 FCR 289; [2006] FCA 328
Elliott v Insurance Australia t/as NRMA Insurance [2014] NSWSC 1848
Frost v Kourouche (2014) 86 NSWLR 214; [2014] NSWCA 39
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; [1985] HCA 81
Meeuwissen v Boden (2010) 78 NSWLR 143; [2010] NSWCA 253
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR (2001) 241 CLR 594; (2011) 273 ALR 223
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Alawia [2016] NSWSC 1875
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 143; 252 CLR 480

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Warren Paul Doyle (Plaintiff)
QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (First Defendant)
Donald Faithfull (Second Defendant)
Jeremy Lum (Third Defendant)
State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Turnbull SC (Plaintiff)
W Fitzsimmons SC (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Brydens Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McInnes Wilson Lawyers (First Defendant)
Submitting Appearance – Crown Solicitor (Second, Third and Fourth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2019/396932
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is a judicial review of a medical assessor and proper officer of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (“SIRA”).
By summons filed 17 December 2019, the plaintiff relevantly seeks:

an order pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) setting aside the certificate and accompanying reasons of Dr Donald K Faithfull in his capacity as a medical assessor of SIRA (“the Medical Assessor”) dated 7 August 2019; or, alternatively,

an order in the nature of certiorari or, alternatively, a declaration…

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 Doyle v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

Details

AGLC: Doyle v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2021] NSWSC 54
Case: [2021] NSWSC 54
Decision Date: 08 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Doyle v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Doyle, and the defendant, QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited, regarding the denial of procedural fairness in the review of decisions made by the Medical Assessor and Proper Officer under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The State Insurance Regulatory Authority had denied Doyle's application for compensation, and Doyle sought judicial review of this decision, arguing that the Authority had failed to provide procedural fairness, made findings unsupported by evidence, and did not provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The court was required to determine whether the State Insurance Regulatory Authority had failed to afford the plaintiff procedural fairness, whether the findings of the Authority were supported by evidence, and whether the Authority had provided adequate reasons for its decisions. The primary legal issue was whether the Authority's failure to provide procedural fairness or adequate reasons, and the making of unsupported findings, rendered its decisions unlawful and subject to judicial review.

The court held that the State Insurance Regulatory Authority had not failed to provide procedural fairness, as the procedures followed were appropriate and provided Doyle with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised. The court also found that the findings of the Authority were supported by evidence, and that the reasons provided were adequate. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the Authority's decisions were not unlawful. As a result, the plaintiff's application was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders