Mullin v CIC Allianz Australia Ltd

In the case of Mullin v CIC Allianz Australia Ltd, the dispute arose from a refusal by the proper officer of the Motor Accidents Authority to refer a medical dispute for further assessment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mullin, sought a review of the decision under section 62 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act, arguing that there was additional relevant information that had not been considered.

The central legal issue before the court was whether information that was not in the possession of the party at the time of the assessment but was available with the exercise of reasonable diligence could be considered "additional" information. The court was required to determine whether the proper officer's decision to not refer the dispute for further assessment was correct. This required an analysis of the statutory language and the precedent set in Singh v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (No 2), which seemed to doubt the broad interpretation of "additional" information.

The court found that information not in the possession of the party and the Motor Accidents Scheme Assessor is indeed considered "additional" information under the Act. The reasoning was based on the statutory language and the principle that information must be available to both parties to be considered relevant. The court concluded that the proper officer did not err in their decision, as the information in question was not in the possession of the party at the time of the assessment and could not be reasonably expected to have been discovered through diligent efforts. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed.