Legal Research
Cases
Georges v Musico

Georges v Musico

Case [2025] NSWSC 1085 23 September 2025

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Georges v Musico [2025] NSWSC 1085
Hearing dates: 18 September 2025
Date of orders: 23 September 2025
Decision date: 23 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Griffiths AJ
Decision:
(1) The amended summons filed 22 May 2024 is dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — review of medical assessment by review panel — judicial review of review panel decision — where medical assessment certificate revoked and replaced by review panel — whether review panel erred in applying psychiatric permanent impairment rating scale in Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines

Legislation Cited:
Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), s 68(2)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 40, 41
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 61, 63, 44, 131, 132, 133
Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW), s 33(1)(b)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 327, 328

Cases Cited:
Abdal v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWSC 478
Ballas v Dept of Education (NSW) (2020) 102 NSWLR 783; [2020] NSWCA 86
Boyce v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (2018) 96 NSWLR 356; [2018] NSWCA 22
Espana v Architectural Projects Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1504
Ferguson v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 887
Heise v Employers Mutual Limited [2022] NSWCA 283
Insurance Australia Group Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Keen [2021] NSWCA 287
Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 633
Kempe v Complete Community Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1095
Lancaster v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 929
Tasevski v Westpac Banking Corp [2024] NSWSC 401
Vannini v Worldwide Demolitions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 324
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43

Texts Cited:
Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines, Version 1, 1 June 2018, cll 1.2, 1.18, 1.21, 1.35, 1.201–1.224
NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed, 1 March 2021

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Georges (Plaintiff)
Alicia Sarah Musico (First Defendant)
President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (Second Defendant) (Submitting appearance)
Review Panel Constituted Under Section 63 of the Motor Accidents Compensation ACT 1999 (Third Defendant) (Submitting appearance)
Representation:
Counsel:
EG Romaniuk SC and G Young (Plaintiff)
J Gumbert (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
JP Law Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second and Third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2025/00164959
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff (Mr Georges) seeks judicial review of a decision dated 31 January 2025 by a review panel (Review Panel) exercising jurisdiction under s 63 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (MAC Act). The Review Panel revoked a certificate dated 28 July 2023 by Medical Assessor Canaris, who had assessed the plaintiff’s permanent impairment resulting from a motor traffic accident at 20%. The Review Panel substituted a medical assessment certificate (MAC) certifying that the claimant has a…

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 Georges v Musico

Details

AGLC: Georges v Musico [2025] NSWSC 1085
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1085
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Georges v Musico, the dispute centred on the revocation of a medical assessment certificate and the subsequent replacement by a review panel. The applicant, Georges, sought judicial review of the panel's decision, contending that it had erred in applying the psychiatric permanent impairment rating scale as outlined in the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the review panel had made an error in applying the relevant guidelines, specifically the psychiatric permanent impairment rating scale, in its assessment of Georges' case. The applicant argued that the panel's decision was flawed due to an incorrect application of the scale, which had resulted in an underestimation of his level of impairment. The respondent, Musico, contended that the panel's decision was correct and that it had properly applied the relevant guidelines in making its assessment.

The court, after carefully considering the evidence and submissions, found that the review panel had indeed erred in its application of the psychiatric permanent impairment rating scale. The court noted that the panel had failed to adequately consider the full extent of the applicant's psychiatric impairment and had not taken into account all relevant factors as required by the guidelines. As a result, the court concluded that the panel's decision was flawed and that the applicant's application for judicial review should be granted. The court set aside the review panel's decision and remitted the matter back to the panel for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

Orders