Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Momand

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Momand [2025] NSWSC 228
Hearing dates: 18 March 2025
Date of orders: 18 March 2025
Decision date: 18 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Order the applicant/first defendant to pay the respondent/plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion filed 13 January 2025.

Catchwords:
COSTS – Party/party – General rule that costs follow the event – Costs where party no longer pressing a Motion – No point of principle

Legislation Cited:
Not Applicable

Cases Cited:
Insurance Australia Pty ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Momand [2024] NSWSC 1529

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance (P/Respondent)
Hedgerat Ahmad Momand (D1/Applicant)
President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (D2)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Jones (P/Respondent)
K Doherty (D1/Applicant)
Solicitors:
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (P/Respondent)
Law Partners (D1/Applicant)

File Number(s): 2024/164939
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

On 8 February 2024, a delegate of the President of the Personal Injury Commission made a decision with respect to a claim lodged by Hedgerat Ahmad Momand in relation to injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 11 March 2021. That claim nominated Insurance Australia Ltd, trading as NRMA Insurance, as the compulsory third party insurer of the motor vehicle at fault in the collision.
On 8 February 2024, the delegate determined that, after a medical assessment had occurred and a report had been issued certifying that the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment of 15 percent, she was not satisfied that there was reasonable cause to suspect that the Medical Assessment Certificate and the reasons for the medical assessment were incorrect in a material respect. She declined to refer the NRMA's review application to a Review Panel.
NRMA commenced proceedings in this Court, seeking an order that the decision of the delegate be quashed. The proceedings were heard on 12 November 2024. On 4 December 2024, Price AJ ordered that the decision of the delegate of the President of the Personal Injury Commission made on 8 February 2024 be quashed, and that the matter be remitted to the President of the Personal Injury Commission for the determination of the review application made by the NRMA according to law. He also ordered that Mr Momand pay NRMA's Insurance's costs: see Insurance Australia Pty Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Momand [2024] NSWSC 1529.
On 13 January 2025 the solicitors for the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion in the proceedings seeking an order in the following terms:

"An order de-identifying the first defendant from the judgment dated 4 December 2024 until 4 June 2024 [sic] to avoid causing undue distress to the first defendant pursuant to ss 6-11 and 12 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).”

The Notice of Motion was returnable before the Registrar today. The parties are agreed that the Court should make an order dismissing that Notice of Motion. This agreement is reached because the applicant, who had not filed any evidence in support of the Motion, no longer wishes to press the Motion.
Offers between the parties were made with respect to costs. No agreement was reached. It is clear on any view, from what I have been told, that the communication between the parties with respect to the offers of costs lacked clarity.
The respondent to the Motion seeks an order that its costs of, and occasioned, by the Motion, be paid by the applicant. The applicant seeks that the Court order that he pay the respondent's costs up until yesterday when the applicant indicated that he did not wish to press the Motion.
It is regrettable that lawyers experienced in litigation cannot resolve clearly any interaction between themselves dealing with such a minor issue as the costs of a Motion. However, the plaintiff, having brought the Motion and no longer seeking to press it strongly, found the view which I have found, namely that costs should follow the event.
I make the following order:

Order the applicant/first defendant to pay the respondent/plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion filed 13 January 2025.

**********

Amendments

19 March 2025 - Typographical error in case citation

The case of Insurance Australia Ltd trading as NRMA Insurance versus Momand came before the court, where the primary issue was whether the costs of the proceedings should follow the event, considering that one party had ceased to press a motion. The plaintiff, NRMA Insurance, sought to recover costs incurred in a legal dispute against the defendant, Momand. After the defendant had abandoned a particular motion, the plaintiff applied for costs under the general rule that costs follow the event. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs under these circumstances.

The court considered the legal principle that costs generally follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party in litigation typically bears the costs of the successful party. However, the specific issue at hand was whether this principle applied when one party had decided not to press a motion. The court examined whether there was a point of principle that would justify deviating from the general rule. After deliberation, the court concluded that there was no compelling reason to depart from the established rule that costs follow the event.

Having reviewed the arguments and the applicable legal principles, the court determined that the costs should follow the event, as the defendant had abandoned the motion. The court found that there was no point of principle that would warrant a departure from the general rule. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs incurred in the proceedings. The court's decision was based on a straightforward application of the established legal principles, without finding any exceptional circumstances that would alter the usual outcome.

In its final orders, the court ruled that the costs of the proceedings were to follow the event, and the plaintiff, NRMA Insurance, was entitled to recover the costs from the defendant, Momand. The court's decision was grounded in the general rule that costs follow the event and the absence of any compelling reason to deviate from this principle.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Momand [2025] NSWSC 228
Hearing dates:	18 March 2025
Date of orders:	18 March 2025
Decision date:	18 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Garling J
Decision:	(1) Order the applicant/first defendant to pay the respondent/plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion filed 13 January 2025.
Catchwords:	COSTS – Party/party – General rule that costs follow the event – Costs where party no longer pressing a Motion – No point of principle
Legislation Cited:	Not Applicable
Cases Cited:	Insurance Australia Pty ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Momand [2024] NSWSC 1529
Texts Cited:	Not Applicable
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance (P/Respondent) Hedgerat Ahmad Momand (D1/Applicant) President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (D2)
Representation:	Counsel: B Jones (P/Respondent) K Doherty (D1/Applicant) Solicitors: Sparke Helmore Lawyers (P/Respondent) Law Partners (D1/Applicant)
File Number(s):	2024/164939
Publication restriction:	Not Applicable