Golding v NRMA

In the matter of Golding v NRMA, the claimant sought to have her motor accident claim assessed under section 7.32 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act, 2017. The defendant insurer, NRMA, argued that the claimant had not used her best endeavours to settle the claim before seeking assessment, and thus the application should be dismissed. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the phrase "best endeavours" as it appears in section 7.32(3) of the Act. The court was required to determine what efforts the claimant was obliged to make to settle the claim before referring it for assessment. The court considered whether the phrase "best endeavours" imposed a requirement for offers to be exchanged or if it simply required the claimant to facilitate an opportunity for settlement discussions.

The court found that "best endeavours" did not mean that offers needed to be exchanged. Rather, it placed an obligation on the claimant to facilitate an opportunity for settlement discussions. The court held that the claimant had done what she reasonably could in the circumstances to settle the claim. The insurer's prior offer provided sufficient evidence for the court to make an assessment of the claim and the claimant's actions put the insurer on notice of the need to protect the limitation period. The court considered the decision in Foster v Hall, which held that the duty of best endeavours does not impose an obligation on the claimant to disregard their own interests. The court declined the application to dismiss the claimant's application for assessment.

In conclusion, the court held that the claimant had satisfied the requirement of "best endeavours" and that the application to dismiss the assessment application should be declined. The court found that the claimant had acted reasonably in the circumstances and that the insurer's prior offer provided sufficient evidence for the court to make an assessment of the claim. The court did not impose an obligation on the claimant to disregard her own interests and held that the phrase "best endeavours" placed an obligation on the claimant to facilitate an opportunity for settlement discussions.