Insurance Australia Ltd trading as NRMA Insurance as agent for the Nominal Defendant v Toole

In the case of Insurance Australia Ltd trading as NRMA Insurance as agent for the Nominal Defendant v Toole, the dispute arose from a decision made by a medical assessor and subsequently upheld by the President’s delegate of the Motor Accidents Authority. The plaintiff, Toole, contested the medical assessor's decision that assessed his permanent impairment following a motor vehicle accident, claiming the assessor had evaluated an aspect of his injury that was outside the scope of the referral. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the medical assessor's decision constituted a jurisdictional error by evaluating a body part that was not within the scope of the referral and if the President’s delegate's refusal to refer the matter to an appeal panel constituted a further error of law. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to seek judicial review should be granted, given the potential for the review panel to rectify the error if it had been allowed to hear the appeal.

The court found that the medical assessor had indeed erred by evaluating a body part not within the scope of the referral, which constituted a jurisdictional error. This error also meant that the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness. Consequently, the court ruled that the medical assessor's decision was invalid. Furthermore, the President’s delegate's refusal to refer the matter to an appeal panel was also an error of law on the face of the record, as the review panel could have corrected the error if it had been allowed to hear the appeal. The court set aside both the medical assessor’s decision and the President’s delegate’s decision. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiff’s application for an extension of time to seek judicial review, given the circumstances.

The court's final orders included setting aside the decisions of the medical assessor and the President’s delegate, and granting the plaintiff's application for an extension of time. The matter was to be remitted to the Motor Accidents Authority for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.