Legal Research
Cases
Henderson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd

Henderson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 23 December 2013 54 min read

Contents

On this page

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Henderson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 480
Hearing dates: 1 August 2013
Decision date: 23 December 2013
Before: Beazley P at [1];
Meagher JA at [60];
Tobias AJA at [108]
Decision:
1. Appeal allowed;
2. Judgment and orders of the court below in favour of the first respondent set aside;
3. Costs order in favour of the first respondent against the appellant in the court below set aside;
4. First respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and in the court below.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 - "additional relevant information" - whether "additional relevant information" capable of having material effect on outcome of previous assessment - whether "additional relevant information" a jurisdictional fact - whether proper officer's decision affected by jurisdictional error or error of law on face of record.
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13
Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; 184 CLR 163
D'Amore v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2013] NSWCA 187
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; 77 ALJR 1088
Enfield City Corporation v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; 199 CLR 135
Ex parte Hebburn Ltd; Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416
Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2000] FCA 589; 173 ALR 362
Garcia v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1056
Goodwin v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWCA 379
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; 239 CLR 531
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; 240 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; 206 CLR 323
Plaintiff M70 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32; 244 CLR 144
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Miller [2013] NSWCA 442
R v Connell; Ex parte The Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd [1944] HCA 42; 69 CLR 407
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51; 207 CLR 391
Rodger v De Gelder [2011] NSWCA 97; 80 NSWLR 594
Singh v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 1443
Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL [1999] NSWCA 8; 46 NSWLR 55
Woolworths v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 442; 61 NSWLR 707
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Henderson…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Henderson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWCA 480
Decision Date: 23 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Henderson, the appellant, sought judicial review of a decision made by the proper officer of QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd, the respondent, concerning a motor accidents compensation claim. The dispute centred on whether certain information provided after an initial assessment constituted "additional relevant information" that could affect the outcome of that assessment, and whether this constituted a jurisdictional fact. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the proper officer's decision was affected by jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record. This involved determining the meaning and effect of "additional relevant information" under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) and whether its presence or absence was a jurisdictional fact that, if misapprehended, vitiated the decision.

The Court of Appeal found that the proper officer's decision had been affected by jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the concept of "additional relevant information" was critical to the proper officer's power to make a determination. By failing to properly consider or give effect to information that was, in fact, additional and relevant, the proper officer had acted outside their jurisdiction or made an error of law on the face of the record. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and orders of the court below in favour of QBE Insurance were set aside, and QBE Insurance was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of both the appeal and the proceedings in the court below.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed;

2. Judgment and orders of the court below in favour of the first respondent set aside;

3. Costs order in favour of the first respondent against the appellant in the court below set aside;

4. First respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and in the court below.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Henderson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 480
Hearing dates:	1 August 2013
Decision date:	23 December 2013
Before:	Beazley P at [1]; Meagher JA at [60]; Tobias AJA at [108]
Decision:	1. Appeal allowed; 2. Judgment and orders of the court below in favour of the first respondent set aside; 3. Costs order in favour of the first respondent against the appellant in the court below set aside; 4. First respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and in the court below. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 - "additional relevant information" - whether "additional relevant information" capable of having material effect on outcome of previous assessment - whether "additional relevant information" a jurisdictional fact - whether proper officer's decision affected by jurisdictional error or error of law on face of record.
Legislation Cited:	Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited:	Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13 Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; 184 CLR 163 D'Amore v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2013] NSWCA 187 Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; 77 ALJR 1088 Enfield City Corporation v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; 199 CLR 135 Ex parte Hebburn Ltd; Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416 Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2000] FCA 589; 173 ALR 362 Garcia v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1056 Goodwin v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWCA 379 Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; 239 CLR 531 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; 240 CLR 611 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; 206 CLR 323 Plaintiff M70 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32; 244 CLR 144 QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Miller [2013] NSWCA 442 R v Connell; Ex parte The Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd [1944] HCA 42; 69 CLR 407 Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51; 207 CLR 391 Rodger v De Gelder [2011] NSWCA 97; 80 NSWLR 594 Singh v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 1443 Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL [1999] NSWCA 8; 46 NSWLR 55 Woolworths v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 442; 61 NSWLR 707
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Paul Henderson…