IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Chahoud

The case of IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Chahoud involved a dispute between the insurance company and the defendant, who was injured in a motor accident. The plaintiff, IAG, sought a further medical assessment of the degree of permanent impairment of the defendant. The proper officer initially dismissed IAG’s application but later reconsidered and found no reason to change the decision. IAG sought judicial review of both decisions, arguing that the proper officer had applied the wrong legal test, misconstrued applicable guidelines, and wrongly determined for herself issues that were properly for expert opinion.

The court examined whether the proper officer had applied the correct legal test in assessing the application for a further medical assessment. The court found that the proper officer had correctly applied the relevant legal test and that the guidelines were not misconstrued. The court also found that the requirement for pre-impairment injury or records of pre-impairment injury did not need to exist at the exact time of the accident. The court held that the proper officer had not wrongly determined for herself issues that were properly for expert opinion. The court further noted that the proper officer had considered the defendant’s submissions and found them to be without merit. The court exercised its discretion to decline to grant relief to IAG.

The court also considered the issue of the summons being filed out of time in respect of the proper officer’s first decision. The court found that an extension of time should be granted in respect of the first decision, as the delay was explained by the exhaustion of remedies below and the second decision was inextricably linked to the first. The defendant accepted there would be no prejudice. The court made orders dismissing IAG’s application for judicial review.