Lee v Yang

Case [2006] NSWCA 214

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Lee v Yang [2006] NSWCA 214
HEARING DATE(S): 28 July 2006
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
2 August 2006
JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 32; Ipp JA at 33
DECISION: (1) Grant leave to appeal and direct the filing of the notice of appeal within seven days. (2) Appeal allowed. (3) Set aside the orders of Garling DCJ and in lieu thereof order: (a) that the orders of the Judicial Registrar be set aside; (b) that the plaintiff’s amended notice of motion be dismissed; and (c) that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the applications heard by the Judicial Registrar and Garling DCJ. (4) Opponent/respondent to pay the claimant/appellant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if otherwise qualified.
CATCHWORDS: Motor Accidents Compensation Act - scheme for assessment of claims prior to court proceedings - assessments of liability for the claim and the amount of damages for that liability - when assessment of the amount of damages for the liability is binding on claimant and insurer - whether binding on insurer independently of acceptance of liability under the claim. D
LEGISLATION CITED: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965;
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.
PARTIES: Heng Ham Lee - Claimant
Heng Ming Yang - Opponent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40818/05
COUNSEL: R Bartlett SC - Claimant
P J Doherty SC & B McManamey - Opponent
SOLICITORS: David McLachlan - Claimant
Somerville & Co, North Sydney - Opponent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 3922/04
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Garling DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 29 June 2005 & 23 September 2005
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Garling DCJ, 23 September 2005, unreported



                          CA 40818/05
                          DC 3922/04

                          GILES JA
                          HODGSON JA
                          IPP JA

                          Wednesday 2 August 2006
LEE v YANG
Judgment

1 GILES JA: The stated objects of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (“the Act”) include encouraging the early resolution of claims to compensation for injuries sustained in motor accidents (s 5(1)(b)). As part of the encouragement, notice of a claim is to be given to the third party insurer of the person against whom the claim is made (s 72(2)), the insurer acts for that person (s 78), and the insurer must try to resolve the claim justly and expeditiously (s 80(1)). By s 81(1), the insurer must promptly notify the claimant whether it admits or denies liability for the claim. Part 4.4 of the Act provides for claims assessment and resolution. By s 108, court proceedings in respect of a claim may not be commenced unless a certificate has issued that the claim is exempt from assessment, or there has been assessment of the claim and a certificate has issued in respect of the claim.

2 By s 92 of the Act, a claim is exempt from assessment if it is of a kind exempt under certain guidelines or the regulations, or if on a…

Continue reading Lee v Yang

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lee v Yang [2006] NSWCA 214
Case
[2006] NSWCA 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute between a claimant, Lee, and an insurer, Yang, regarding the assessment of a motor accident claim under the relevant legislation. The primary question before the Court of Appeal was whether an assessment of the amount of damages for a liability, made under the statutory scheme for pre-litigation claims, was binding on the insurer independently of the insurer's acceptance of liability for the claim itself.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine the precise effect of the statutory assessment process, specifically whether an insurer was bound by an assessment of damages even if they had not formally accepted liability for the underlying claim. This involved interpreting the provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act concerning the binding nature of such assessments on both the claimant and the insurer.

The Court of Appeal held that the insurer was not bound by the assessment of damages unless they had accepted liability for the claim. The reasoning focused on the statutory framework, which contemplated a two-stage assessment process: first, liability for the claim, and second, the amount of damages for that liability. The Court concluded that the insurer's obligation to be bound by the damages assessment was contingent upon their acceptance of liability. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous orders were set aside, and the plaintiff's motion was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Grant leave to appeal and direct the filing of the notice of appeal within seven days. (2) Appeal allowed. (3) Set aside the orders of Garling DCJ and in lieu thereof order: (a) that the orders of the Judicial Registrar be set aside; (b) that the plaintiff's amended notice of motion be dismissed; and (c) that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the applications heard by the Judicial Registrar and Garling DCJ. (4) Opponent/respondent to pay the claimant/appellant's costs of the application for leave to appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if otherwise qualified.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.