Legal Research
Cases
IAG Limited v Sleiman

IAG Limited v Sleiman

Case [2017] NSWSC 1346 5 October 2017

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Reasons for Decision

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: IAG Limited v Sleiman [2017] NSWSC 1346
Hearing dates: 11 August 2017
Date of orders: 05 October 2017
Decision date: 05 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Set aside the decision of the second defendant made 5 January 2017.
Remit the matter to the third defendant for re-assessment of future economic loss.
No order as to costs.

Catchwords: TRAFFIC LAW AND TRANSPORT – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – judicial review of s 94 certificate – challenge to assessment of future economic loss – adequacy of reasons – whether decision unreasonable – set aside future economic loss component of s 94 certificate – remit for reassessment by another assessor.
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Campbelltown City Council v Vegen (2006) NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: IAG Limited T/AS NRMA Insurance (plaintiff)
Ahmad Sleiman (first defendant)
Shana Radnan in her capacity as Claims Assessor of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority of New South Wales (second defendant)
State Insurance Regulatory Authority of New South Wales (third defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Mark Robinson SC/Ms Jnana Gumbert (plaintiff)
Submitting appearances filed for all three defendants
Solicitors:
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (plaintiff)
Drexler & Partners Litigation and Compensation Lawyers (first defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (second and third defendants)

File Number(s): 2017/077160

Judgment

The plaintiff is a compulsory third party liability insurer under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Act”). It seeks judicial review of an administrative decision made under that Act on 5 January 2017 by the second defendant, an assessor of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (“the Authority”). The decision is comprised in a certificate issued under s 94 of the Act, assessing damages for injuries sustained by the first defendant in a motor vehicle accident on 31 January 2014. The sum assessed is $929,516.01.
The second and third defendants filed submitting appearances. The first defendant filed a response to the summons but did not participate in the hearing. The plaintiff’s arguments in support of orders quashing the assessment have therefore been received by the Court without opposing arguments from any contradictor.

The assessment

The plaintiff admitted liability for the accident by letter of 9 July 2014. Accordingly the referral to the Authority under s 90 of the Act was for assessment of the amount of damages only. Under s 93 of the Act the Principal Claims Assessor appointed the second defendant to assess the claim. The material provided to the second defendant (hereafter “the assessor”) included medical assessment certificates issued pursuant to s 61 of the Act. One of these certificates dealt with physical injuries and attributed 4% Whole Person Impairment to soft tissue injuries to the first defendant’s right shoulder and to his right knee. Another certificate attributed 22% Whole Person Impairment to psychiatric consequences, namely chronic Post Traumatic…

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 IAG Limited v Sleiman

Details

AGLC: IAG Limited v Sleiman [2017] NSWSC 1346
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1346
Decision Date: 05 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of IAG Limited v Sleiman, the court was tasked with examining a dispute pertaining to a certificate issued under section 94 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The case revolved around the adequacy of reasons provided for the assessment of future economic loss in the certificate, as well as the overall reasonableness of the decision. IAG Limited, the insurer, sought judicial review of the certificate issued in favour of the respondent, Sleiman, who had sustained injuries in a motor accident. The central issue before the court was whether the certificate's assessment of future economic loss was unreasonable due to the inadequacy of the reasons provided, and if so, whether the certificate should be set aside and remitted for reassessment by another assessor.

The court carefully examined the statutory framework and the principles of judicial review applicable to the assessment of future economic loss under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. It considered the requirement for reasons that are adequate and sufficient to demonstrate the logical connection between the evidence and the conclusions reached. The court assessed whether the certificate's reasons met this standard and if the decision was so unreasonable as to warrant intervention. The court also took into account the nature of the evidence and the weight that could reasonably be ascribed to it.

Upon reviewing the reasons provided in the certificate, the court determined that they were insufficient to adequately support the conclusions reached regarding future economic loss. The reasoning did not clearly articulate how the evidence led to the specific assessment, and the logical connection was not convincingly demonstrated. Consequently, the court found that the decision was unreasonable and set aside the future economic loss component of the certificate. The matter was then remitted for reassessment by another qualified assessor to ensure a more robust and adequately reasoned assessment of future economic loss.

Orders