Little v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited

Little brought a judicial review against Allianz Australia Insurance Limited regarding a motor accident claim. The insurer admitted liability but disputed the degree of permanent impairment. The dispute involved separate assessments of physical and psychiatric impairment. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether there was a reviewable error in the medical assessment and whether the proper officer was correctly directed by the law.

The court examined whether the psychiatrist was bound to accept the physical assessment of the neurosurgeon. It found that the psychiatrist was not required to accept the neurosurgeon's assessment but could form their own opinion. The court also considered the legal status of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines and concluded that the disagreement between the two medical professionals about the physical impairment was irrelevant. The court quashed the medical assessment of the psychiatrist. Furthermore, the court reviewed the decision of the proper officer under section 62 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. It found that the proper officer misdirected herself as to the meaning of "additional relevant information." However, the court held that the proper officer's opinion was nonetheless formed according to law.

The court quashed the decision of the proper officer and remitted the matter to the insurer for reconsideration. The insurer was required to consider the psychiatric assessment of the psychiatrist and the physical assessment of the neurosurgeon separately. The court did not provide specific orders beyond the quashing of the decisions and the remanding of the matter for reconsideration.