Neish v Insurance Australia Limited ACN 000 016 722 Trading as NRMA Insurance (Motor Accident Injuries)

The matter before the Tribunal involved Neish, the applicant, against Insurance Australia Limited, trading as NRMA Insurance, the respondent. The dispute centred around an application by the respondent under section 197(3) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019. The respondent sought leave to present supplementary information or evidence that was not reasonably available to the decision-maker when the initial decision was made. The application specifically related to a supplementary report by Dr Oppermann dated 13 August 2021.

The key legal issues the court had to address were whether the supplementary report by Dr Oppermann was reasonably available to the decision-maker when the initial decision was made and whether the applicant had a right to obtain and present all reasonably available information to the decision-maker as early as possible. The court had to interpret the meaning of the phrase "not reasonably available to the decision-maker" as it appeared in section 197(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's application to present the supplementary report. In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the supplementary report was reasonably available to the decision-maker at the time of the initial decision. The Tribunal concluded that the information contained in the report was not new or unforeseen and that it could have been obtained and presented to the decision-maker earlier. The Tribunal held that the phrase "not reasonably available to the decision-maker" meant that the information or evidence was not accessible or could not be reasonably obtained by the decision-maker at the time the decision was made. Since the supplementary report could have been obtained and presented earlier, it was reasonably available to the decision-maker.