Legal Research
Cases
Reid v AAI Limited t/as GIO

Reid v AAI Limited t/as GIO

Case [2025] NSWSC 1308 6 November 2025

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Reasons for Decision

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Reid v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWSC 1308
Hearing dates: 22 October 2025
Date of orders: 06 November 2025
Decision date: 06 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Free JA
Decision:
(1) Summons dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant’s costs.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – review of decision by review panel constituted for review under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – where plaintiff injured in motor vehicle accident – psychological injury – whether review panel failed to provide reasons in applying the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale – whether review panel’s path of reasoning is sufficiently exposed on a fair reading of the reasons – whether review panel failed to conduct the medical assessment in accordance with the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines

Legislation Cited:
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 131, 132, 133, Pts 3.4, 5.3
Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd t/as Allianz v Susak [2025] NSWCA 91
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr (2012) 83 NSWLR 302; [2012] NSWCA 13
Boyce v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (2018) 96 NSWLR 356; [2018] NSWCA 22
Della Bruna v Health Care Complaints Commission [2025] NSWCA 105
Frost v Kourouche (2014) 86 NSWLR 214; [2014] NSWCA 39
Garcia v Motor Accidents Authority [2009] NSWSC 1056; (2009) 54 MVR 102
Georges v Musico [2025] NSWSC 1085
Insurance Australia Group Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Keen [2021] NSWCA 287
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Trkulja [2023] NSWSC 956
Jenkins v Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 633
Lancaster v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 929
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6
New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr (2019) 100 NSWLR 578; [2019] NSWCA 231
Pham v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2014] NSWCA 22; (2014) 66 MVR 152
Politis v Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 20 ATR 108; [1988] FCA 739
Rose v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWSC 134
Sadsad v NRMA Insurance [2014] NSWSC 1216; (2014) 67 MVR 601
Saville v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 298
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43
Zahed v IAG Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2016] NSWCA 55; (2016) 75 MVR 1

Texts Cited:
American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA4) (4th ed, 1995)
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed, 2022)
Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines (version 1), cll 1.2, 1.3, 1.18, 1.201, 1.202, 1.203, 1.204, 1.205, 1.206, 1.207, 1.208, 1.209, 1.210, 1.211, 1.212, 1.213, 1.217, 1.218, 1.219, 1.220, 1.221, 1.222, 1.223, 1.224

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Leah Reid (Plaintiff)
AAI Limited t/as GIO (First Defendant)
Member Maurice Castagnet, Medical Assessors Michael Hong…

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.

Continue reading Reid v AAI Limited t/as GIO

Details

AGLC: Reid v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWSC 1308
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1308
Decision Date: 06 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in the case were Reid, the plaintiff, and AAI Limited trading as GIO, the defendant. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident in which Reid sustained psychological injury. The plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision by a review panel under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The central issue before the court was whether the review panel had provided sufficient reasons for its application of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, and whether its path of reasoning was adequately exposed on a fair reading of its reasons. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the review panel had conducted the medical assessment in accordance with the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines.

The court examined whether the review panel had adequately justified its application of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, focusing on whether the panel’s reasoning was transparent enough for effective scrutiny. The court also considered whether the panel’s reasoning was sufficiently laid out in its reasons to allow for meaningful judicial review. Furthermore, the court scrutinized whether the panel had adhered to the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines in conducting its medical assessment.

The court found that the review panel had not sufficiently explained its application of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, and the panel's path of reasoning was not adequately exposed. The court held that the review panel’s reasons did not enable effective scrutiny of the panel’s decision-making process. Additionally, the court concluded that the panel had not conducted the medical assessment in accordance with the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines. As a result, the court quashed the review panel’s decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

Orders