Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Cornish

In this case, Insurance Australia Limited, trading as NRMA Insurance, sought judicial review of a decision by an officer of the Motor Accident Authority, refusing a request for a further assessment of the claimant’s entitlement to compensation. The claimant, Cornish, had been assessed by a medical assessor and was awarded 25% whole person impairment (WPI). The officer refused a request to refer the matter for further assessment, on the basis that the information provided was not additional relevant information capable of having a material effect on the outcome of the assessment. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to determine whether the officer had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and whether there were any errors in the decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court were whether the officer had viewed the video surveillance material provided or had relied on a summary, whether the video and other material provided constituted additional relevant information, whether it was capable of having a material effect on the outcome of the previous assessment, whether the officer’s reasons demonstrated an error or legal unreasonableness, and whether there was any utility in quashing the decision and referring the matter for reconsideration. The court found that the officer had viewed the video and had not relied on a summary. The court also found that the video and other material provided did constitute additional relevant information. However, the court held that the additional information was not capable of having a material effect on the outcome of the previous assessment.

The court found that the officer’s reasons did demonstrate an error, as the officer had failed to consider the impact of the additional information on the previous assessment. However, the court found that this error did not demonstrate legal unreasonableness, as the outcome of the assessment would not have been materially affected by the additional information. The court also found that the officer had performed her statutory task, as the error did not go to the core of the decision-making process. Finally, the court held that there was no utility in quashing the decision and referring the matter for reconsideration, as the additional information affected assessments totalling no more than 14%, and the outcome was not capable of having a material effect on the outcome. The summons was dismissed.