Mulcahy v NRMA Insurance Limited

Mulcahy (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of Adamson J, which had upheld a decision of a claims assessor appointed under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). The dispute concerned the adequacy of the reasons provided by the claims assessor in an award of future economic loss made in favour of NRMA Insurance Limited (the first respondent).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the claims assessor had committed an error of law on the face of the record by failing to sufficiently disclose their reasoning in relation to the award of future economic loss. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the claims assessor's adoption of an accountant's report constituted an incorporation of that report into the assessor's reasons, despite the statutory requirement for reasons to be brief.

The Court of Appeal found that the claims assessor's reasons were inadequate. While the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* permits brief reasons, the assessor's reliance on an accountant's report without clearly articulating how that report informed their decision meant that the reasoning process was not sufficiently disclosed. The court held that simply adopting a report without explaining its application to the specific facts and the assessor's own conclusions amounted to an error of law on the face of the record.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the orders of Adamson J were set aside, and the summons filed by NRMA Insurance Limited was dismissed. The first respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings below and of the appeal.