Holbert v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited - [2025] NSWPICMP 716

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	Holbert v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPICMP 716
CLAIMANT:	Mark Holbert
INSURER:	QBE (Insurance) Australia Limited
REVIEW PANEL
MEMBER:	Terence O’Riain
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Paul Friend
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Alan Doris
DATE OF DECISION:	16 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; permanent impairment; review; insurer disputed causation and permanent impairment; significant psychological and physical injuries before accident; Commission referred psychiatric condition to assess permanent impairment; Medical Assessor’s certificate assessed 8% permanent impairment; referred for review; re-examination; claimant was cooperative and consistent; accident was capable of causing all referred injuries; 5% permanent impairment; different clinical findings; Held – different permanent impairment findings to original assessment; Review Panel revoked original medical assessment certificate; permanent impairment not greater than 10%.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION Issued under Division 7.5 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 The Review Panel: 1. Revokes Medical Assessor Alexey Sidorov’s certificate dated 28 January 2024. 2. Certifies that Mark Holbert’s permanent impairment resulting from the injury caused by the accident is 5% permanent impairment arising from: · alcohol use disorder of a dependent type, and · adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression caused by the accident, which is not greater than 10%.

REASONS

Mark Holbert (the claimant) was injured in a motor accident on 15 March 2021. The claimant claimed damages for his injuries arising from the accident and there is a dispute about permanent impairment under the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).
The claimant applied to the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) to resolve this dispute.
On 9 January 2024 Medical Assessor Sidorov assessed the claimant’s psychiatric condition and produced a certificate dated 28 January 2024.

The Medical Assessor assessed 8% permanent impairment, which is below the threshold of greater than 10%, which would entitle the claimant to claim non-economic loss damages. This permanent impairment assessment included a deduction for a condition that was symptomatic before the accident.
The claimant applied under s 7.26 of the MAI Act to refer this assessment to a review panel on the grounds that the medical assessment was incorrect in a material respect. The insurer provided reasons why it opposed that application.
The Presidential delegate accepted the claimant's application.
The Commission’s President constituted this Review Panel (the Panel) to review the above medical assessment (the Review).
Following rule 128(1) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules, 2021 (the PIC Rules) the Panel “is to conduct and determine the proceedings in accordance with procedures determined by the panel.”
This Panel met on 17 April 2025.
The Panel’s report and directions noted the claimant’s bundle of documents comprises 4,962 pages.
Whilst Rule 67B of the PIC Rules does not apply to medical review panel proceedings the Panel informed it the parties that they must ensure ensure that the documents relied upon facilitate the just, quick and cost effective resolution of the real issue in the proceedings.
The Panel referred the parties to the decision of the High Court in Gamestar Pty…

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 Holbert v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited 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: [2025] NSWPICMP 716
Decision Date: 16 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Holbert v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited concerned the determination of permanent impairment following a motor accident. The claimant, Holbert, sought compensation from the insurer, QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited, for injuries sustained in the accident. The insurer disputed both the causation of the injuries and their severity, claiming that the claimant had pre-existing conditions that contributed to the claimed impairments. The dispute was resolved by the Motor Accident Injuries Commission (MAIC), which referred the case to the Court for a judicial review of the Commission's decision.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the Commission had correctly applied the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 in assessing the claimant’s permanent impairment and whether the claimant’s injuries were caused by the accident or exacerbated by pre-existing conditions. The court was required to determine if the MAIC had erred in its review of the Medical Assessor’s certificate, which initially assessed the claimant's permanent impairment at 8%, and subsequently revoked it following a re-examination.

In reviewing the Commission's decision, the court found that the claimant had significant psychological and physical injuries both before and after the accident. The court noted that the claimant was cooperative and consistent in their presentation. It concluded that the accident was capable of causing all the injuries for which the claimant sought compensation. The court accepted the re-examination findings that the claimant’s permanent impairment was 5%, rather than 8% as initially assessed. The court also acknowledged that the Commission had correctly exercised its discretion in revoking the original assessment certificate and determining the claimant's permanent impairment not to exceed 10%. Therefore, the court upheld the Commission’s decision.

The court's final orders affirmed the decision of the Motor Accident Injuries Commission, setting the claimant’s permanent impairment at a maximum of 10%. This decision was based on the re-examination which took into account the claimant's pre-existing conditions and the injuries sustained in the accident. The court found that the Commission had appropriately exercised its discretion and correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in reaching its decision.

Orders