Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance v Helou

Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance (NRMA) appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales against a decision of an assessor appointed under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The dispute concerned the assessment of damages for injuries sustained by the respondent in a motor vehicle accident. NRMA contended that the assessor's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record, arguing that the assessor had failed to properly determine the amount of damages as required by the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the assessor had made a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record in assessing the respondent's damages. Specifically, NRMA argued that the assessor failed to properly assess the extent to which the respondent's lumbar spine condition was attributable to the accident, as opposed to a pre-existing degenerative condition. This involved questions of whether the assessor ought to have assessed damages arising from each condition separately, or alternatively, deducted the portion of loss attributable to the pre-existing condition from the total loss. NRMA also raised concerns about procedural fairness and whether the assessor had adequately complied with the obligation to provide reasons for the decision.

The Court considered the principles of jurisdictional error and error of law on the face of the record, noting that such errors occur when a decision-maker exceeds their statutory authority. The Court examined the assessor's reasons for decision, particularly in relation to past economic loss. The assessor had found that the respondent's earning capacity was not reduced between April 2001 and November 2005, citing the respondent's ability to work during that period, the pre-existing decline of his business, and the adverse impact of his degenerative lumbar spine condition and age on his earning capacity. The Court found that the assessor had taken into account the causal contribution of the pre-existing condition in assessing damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.