QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Jovanovic - [2015] NSWSC 241

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Jovanovic
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 241
Hearing Date(s):	20 March 2015
Date of Orders:	20 March 2015
Decision Date:	20 March 2015
Before:	Garling J
Decision:	(1)Order in the nature of certiorari setting aside the decision of the third defendant made 17 June 2014 to refer the impairment dispute in this matter for further medical assessment under s 62(1)(a) Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. (2)Order in the nature of certiorari setting aside the consequential decision of the second and third defendants to refer the impairment dispute to the fifth defendant for further assessment. (3)Order in the nature of certiorari setting aside the decision of the fourth defendant to refer the treatment dispute in this matter to the fifth defendant for further medical assessment under s 62(1)(b) Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (4)Order that the application for further assessment of the impairment dispute be remitted to the second defendant to be dealt with according to law. (5)The plaintiff’s Summons otherwise dismissed. (6)Each party is to pay his, her or its own costs of these proceedings.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 – role of Proper Officer – “additional relevant material” – whether the Proper Officer’s opinion that a report provided “additional relevant material” was properly formed according to law – report not capable of constituting additional information about the causation of the injury – decision unreasonable or irrational – decision quashed – no point of general principle
Legislation Cited:	Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Alavanja v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1182 Garcia v Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1056 Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited v Vojnikovich [2014] NSWSC 1519. QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Miller [2013] NSWCA 442
Texts Cited:	Not Applicable
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (P) Vera Jovanovic (D1) Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (D2) Jane Probert (Proper Officer) (D3) Terrence Broomfield (Claims Assessor) (D4) Dr James Bodel (Medical Assessor) (D5)
Representation:	Counsel: K Rewell SC (P) Submitting (D1) Submitting (D2) Submitting (D3) Submitting (D4) Submitting (D5) Solicitors: QBE Australia In House Legal-Claims (P) Marshall & Gibson (D1) Crown Solicitor’s Office (D2, D3, D4, D5)
File Number(s):	2014/239292
Publication Restriction:	Not applicable

___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (“QBE”), in a Summons filed on 14 August 2014, claims relief by way of declarations and orders with respect to the conduct of the Motor Accidents Authority of NSW, and various officers of it.
The first defendant in the proceedings is Ms Vera Jovanovic, who alleges that she suffered multiple injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 23 January 2010. Ms Jovanovic made a claim with respect to those injuries pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (“the MACA”).
In these proceedings, the second defendant is the Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (“the MAA”).
The third defendant is Ms Probert, the Proper Officer of the MAA. The…

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 QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Jovanovic 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: [2015] NSWSC 241
Decision Date: 20 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Jovanovic, the dispute involved an application for judicial review of a decision made by a Proper Officer under the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999. The applicant, QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd, sought to challenge the decision of the Proper Officer, arguing that it was unreasonable or irrational. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Proper Officer was quashed.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Proper Officer’s opinion that a particular report constituted “additional relevant material” was properly formed according to law. The applicant contended that the report in question did not contain any additional information regarding the causation of the injury, and therefore, could not be considered as “additional relevant material” as per the statutory provisions. The court had to examine whether the decision of the Proper Officer was unreasonable or irrational, given the statutory framework and the evidence presented.

The court concluded that the decision of the Proper Officer was unreasonable and irrational. The reasoning behind the decision was that the report in question did not provide any additional information about the causation of the injury. The court held that the Proper Officer had failed to properly consider the statutory criteria for determining whether a report constitutes “additional relevant material.” As a result, the decision of the Proper Officer was quashed, and the matter was remitted back for reconsideration in light of the court’s findings. The court did not find it necessary to address any points of general principle in its judgment.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Proper Officer be quashed and that the matter be remitted back for reconsideration. The court did not make any other orders or findings in relation to the case.

Orders