Rotella v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI - [2025] NSWPICPD 49

PRESIDENTIAL DECISION (Motor Accidents Division)
CITATION:	Rotella v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI [2025] NSWPICPD 49
CLAIMANT:	Mario Rotella
INSURER:	AAI Ltd t/as AAMI
FILE NUMBER:	R-M23167/24
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Phillips
DATE OF PRESIDENT’S DECISION:	26 June 2025
ORDERS:	1. Pursuant to r 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, I order that paragraph [23] of the Certificate of the Medical Review Panel issued 11 April 2025 (R-M23167/24) be redacted in full.
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Application for redaction and/or de-identification of aspects of a Medical Review Panel Certificate, rule 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 considered and applied – Section 58 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 considered
HEARING:	25 June 2025
REPRESENTATION:	Insurer and law firm:
Ms J Gumbert, counsel
Moray & Agnew Lawyers
Claimant:
Mr Noun (paralegal) (appearing with leave)
Sharah Henville Lawyers

BACKGROUND

Mr Mario Rotella, the claimant, suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident on 26 May 2017. The respondent to the claim is the relevant motor vehicle third party insurer, AAI Limited trading as AAMI. The insurer’s lawyers were at all times the firm Moray & Agnew Lawyers. The claimant’s claim is brought under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MAC Act).
Briefly, the relevant background facts to this dispute are as follows. The claimant brought a claim for multiple types of medical treatment and care said to be related to the subject accident. He was assessed by a Personal Injury Commission (Commission) Medical Assessor, Medical Assessor Shahzad, who issued a Certificate dated 3 June 2024, which decision denied the claims. The claimant then made an application for the referral of his medical treatment claims for assessment by a Commission Medical Review Panel (Panel).
A Panel was convened to review the claimant’s 40 claims for medical treatment. A Direction was issued by the Panel on 12 November 2024 (Direction). The Direction made various comments about how the claim had been framed, noting that “The Panel may comment on the drafting of the medical disputes when the reasons are delivered.” The Direction then proceeded to make standard directions about the filing of submissions and the appointment of a medical examination of the claimant. I would remark that these Directions were directed to the 40 distinct disputes that were live between the parties. The insurer responded to the Direction in a submission dated 22 November 2024, rephrasing the claims which had the effect of expanding the dispute to 120 separate disputes.
The Panel issued a Certificate of Determination dated 11 April 2025 (Certificate), which revoked the 3 June 2024 Certificate and replaced it with their own decision. The Certificate is a detailed decision of 30 pages, comprising 105 paragraphs. At paragraph [23] of the Certificate, the Panel made certain remarks which were critical about the conduct of the proceedings, which have led to this application being made and which I am called upon to decide. I will more fully describe this application below. The Certificate itself has not been challenged.
The subject…

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 Rotella v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI 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: [2025] NSWPICPD 49
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rotella v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI, the court was tasked with addressing an application for the redaction and de-identification of certain aspects of a Medical Review Panel Certificate. The applicant sought to have specific parts of the certificate redacted or de-identified under rule 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, with the aim of balancing the public interest in open justice against the safety, health, and wellbeing of the individuals involved. The court was required to interpret and apply the relevant rules and statutes, particularly section 58 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, which mandates the publication of decisions.

The court considered the objects of the Act, including the principle of open justice and the need to protect the wellbeing of individuals named in the decision. It noted that any application for redaction or de-identification under rule 132 should be seen as a departure from the principle of open justice and therefore requires careful consideration. The court evaluated the public interest in maintaining open justice against the potential harm to the individuals if their details were published. It also took into account the views of the parties and whether it was necessary in the public interest to grant the application.

Upon review, the court found that the case met the criteria for redaction under rule 132, particularly considering the potential harm to the individuals' safety, health, and wellbeing. Consequently, the court ordered that a specific paragraph of the Medical Review Panel Certificate be redacted in full. This decision reflects the court's commitment to upholding the principle of open justice while also protecting the interests of the individuals involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, I order that paragraph [23] of the Certificate of the Medical Review Panel issued 11 April 2025 (R-M23167/24) be redacted in full.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Rule 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 provides:“132 De-identification or redaction of publishable decisions(1) The Commission or the President may, of their own motion or on the application of a relevant person, direct either or both of the following—(a) that all or part of a publishable decision be de-identified before it is published,(b) that part of a publishable decision be redacted before it is published.(2) An application for a direction may be made during, or after the completion of, the proceedings in which the publishable decision is issued.(3) An application for a direction is to be made to—(a) for proceedings being heard by the Commission that have not been completed—the Commission, or(b) for other proceedings that have not been completed—the President, or(c) for proceedings that have been completed—the President within 7 days after the publishable decision is issued.(4) In determining an application for a direction, the Commission or the President is to have regard to the following matters—(a) the objects of the PIC Act and enabling legislation and, in particular, the object that the Commission be open and transparent about its processes,(b) the prevention of prejudice to the proper administration of justice,(c) the safety, health and wellbeing of a person affected or named by the publishable decision,(d) the views of any other party to the proceedings,(e) whether it is necessary in the public interest for the direction to be given and whether the public interest in giving the direction significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice.(5) If the Commission grants an application for a direction under subrule (3)(a), the President may, despite the direction of the Commission, direct that the publishable decision be published without the de-identifications or redactions directed by the Commission or with different de-identifications or redactions.(6) In this rule—publishable decision means a decision details of which are required to be published by section 58 of the PIC Act.relevant person, in relation to an application for a direction, means—(a) a party to the proceedings in which the publishable decision is made, or(b) a person named in the publishable decision, or(c) another person the Commission or the President considers to have a sufficient interest to make the application.” Section 58 of the 2020 Act reflects the longstanding position of the general law that justice takes place in the open and that orders regarding suppression or non-publication are departures from that principle.[5] Section 58 of the 2020 Act reflects a very clear Parliamentary intention supporting the general principle of open justice. To this general rule I would add that the categories of redaction and de-identification provided for by r 132 should also be considered as departures from this general principle. Given the general principle and the clear Parliamentary intention as expressed in the mandatory nature of Section 58 of the 2020 Act, decision-makers need to be satisfied that in any r 132 application, that the case is an appropriate one in which to depart from the general principle. [5] Council of New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCA 339 (EFA), [217]; Misrachi v The Public Guardian [2019] NSWCA 67 (Misrachi), [10]–[13]; Haddad v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 140 (Haddad), [20]–[22].

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.