Matthes v The Nominal Defendant - [2021] NSWSC 188

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matthes v The Nominal Defendant [2021] NSWSC 188
Hearing dates: 9 February 2021
Date of orders: 5 March 2021
Decision date: 05 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) The amended summons filed 15 August 2020 is dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs on an ordinary basis.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – Jurisdictional error – Review of the decision of a proper officer – Whether the proper officer acted in excess of the “gatekeeper” role under s 63(3) – Whether the decision was made according to law – Where the decision was not irrational, illogical and not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds – Review dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 62, 63
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 59.4

Cases Cited:
AAI Ltd t/as AAMI v Chan [2021] NSWCA 19
AAI Ltd trading as GIO as agent for the Nominal Defendant v McGiffen [2016] NSWCA 229
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Ballas v Department of Education (State of NSW) (2020) 102 NSWLR 783; [2020] NSWCA 86
Bradley v Insurance Australia Ltd (t/as NRMA Insurance) [2015] NSWSC 950
Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110
Bugat v Fox [2014] NSWSC 888
Dominice v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2017] NSWCA 171
Elliott v Insurance Australia (t/as NRMA Insurance) [2014] NSWSC 1848
IAG Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Chahoud [2019] NSWSC 767
McHenry v Insurance Australia Limited (t/as NRMA Insurance) [2019] NSWSC 68
Meeuwissen v Boden (2010) 78 NSWLR 145; [2010] NSWCA 253
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 78 ALJR 992
Owen v Motor Accidents Authority (NSW) [2012] NSWSC 650
QBE v Miller [2013] NSWCA 442
R v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407
Rodger v De Gelder [2015] NSWCA 211
Shmailov v AAI Limited [2020] NSWSC 887
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Patrick James Matthes (Plaintiff)
The Nominal Defendant (First Defendant)
State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Second Defendant)
Andrew Tilley, Proper Officer of the Motor Accidents Medical Assessment Service (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R de Meyrick (Plaintiff)
J Gumbert & M Jones (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Grieve Watson Kelly Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McCabe Curwood (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/219178
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is a judicial review of a decision of a Proper Officer of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (“SIRA”) under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (“the MAC Act”).
By amended summons filed 15 August 2020, the plaintiff seeks:

an order under…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matthes v The Nominal Defendant and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWSC 188
Decision Date: 05 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Matthes v The Nominal Defendant, the plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision made under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The plaintiff challenged the decision of a proper officer, arguing that the officer acted beyond the scope of their role and in excess of their powers, specifically concerning the "gatekeeper" function outlined in section 63(3) of the Act. The dispute centred around whether the officer's decision was irrational, illogical, or not based on factual findings or inferences supported by logical grounds.

The court was tasked with determining whether the proper officer made a jurisdictional error by exceeding their role as a gatekeeper under the Act. Additionally, the court had to assess if the decision was made according to law and whether the officer's actions were rational and logically grounded in the facts. The key issue was whether the officer's decision was so flawed as to warrant judicial intervention under the principles of administrative law.

The court found that the proper officer's decision did not constitute a jurisdictional error. The officer's actions were within the scope of their role as defined by the Act and did not exceed the "gatekeeper" function. The decision was rational and based on logical grounds supported by the facts. Consequently, the court concluded that the decision was made according to law and dismissed the application for judicial review. The court's reasoning was that the officer's decision was neither irrational nor illogical, and it was appropriately grounded in the facts of the case.

Orders