Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA v Richards

In this case, the defendant, Ms. Richards, sought judicial review of a decision made by the insurer, Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA, which declined her entitlement to statutory benefits under sections 3.11 and 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) after a 26-week statutory period. The dispute was brought before the court following a successful miscellaneous claims assessment before the Personal Injury Commission, which found that Ms. Richards was entitled to benefits beyond the initial statutory period. The central legal issues before the court were the burden of proof for entitlement to statutory benefits beyond the statutory period, the operation of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, and whether the Commission's findings contained any impermissible inferences or failed to draw necessary inferences from the evidence.

The court addressed the burden of proof issue by affirming that, where entitlement to statutory benefits after the 26-week period is contested, the burden falls on the insurer to demonstrate that the statutory period is sufficient. The court also examined the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, which permits inferences to be drawn about the cause of an accident when the incident's nature suggests negligence. It was found that the Commission's inferences regarding the cause of the accident were not impermissible, but the court did find that the Commission failed to draw certain inferences that the evidence required. The court concluded that these errors warranted setting aside the certificate and remitting the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration.

Ultimately, the court set aside the certificate issued by the insurer and remitted the matter to the Personal Injury Commission for further assessment, taking into account the correct application of the burden of proof and the necessary inferences to be drawn from the evidence. The final orders included the setting aside of the insurer's certificate and the direction for the matter to be reconsidered by the Commission in light of the court's findings.