Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance v Mayer

The case of Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance v Mayer was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the insurer, NRMA Insurance, seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the term “incurred” in section 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), specifically whether treatment and care expenses were payable if they were directly related to and reasonably contemplated at the time of surgery, regardless of whether the treatment was provided after the statutory 26-week period.

The central legal issue the court had to address was the interpretation of the term “incurred” in the context of the Motor Accident Injuries Act. The court was required to determine whether the term “incurred” meant that treatment and care expenses had to be incurred within the 26-week statutory period, or whether it meant that expenses were payable if they were directly related to, and reasonably contemplated at the time of, the surgery. The court also needed to consider whether the statutory interpretation was consistent with the objectives of the Motor Accident Injuries Act and the broader legislative scheme.

The court found that the term “incurred” in section 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act should be interpreted as meaning that expenses are payable if they are directly related to, and reasonably contemplated at the time of, the surgery, regardless of whether they are provided after the 26-week statutory period. The court emphasised the importance of considering the legislative context and the objectives of the Act, which aimed to ensure that injured persons receive appropriate care and treatment. The court held that the decision of the Personal Injury Commission was correct and dismissed the insurer’s application for judicial review.

In dismissing the insurer’s application, the court confirmed the liability of NRMA Insurance to pay for the treatment and care expenses that were directly related to, and reasonably contemplated at the time of, the surgery. The court did not grant the insurer’s application for judicial review, thereby upholding the decision of the Personal Injury Commission and affirming the broad interpretation of the term “incurred” in the context of the Motor Accident Injuries Act.