Ryan v NRMA Insurance - [2024] ACAT 52

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

RYAN v NRMA INSURANCE [2024] ACAT 52

MAI 8/2023
Catchwords: MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURIES – application to review decision to suspend insured’s benefits – application filed later than 28 days after the decision sought to be reviewed was made – application to extend time for filing an application for review – preliminary objection to jurisdiction to extend time – whether Tribunal has power to extend time pursuant to rule 38 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedures Rules – whether rule 38 is invalid because beyond power – rule 38 valid and gives power to extend time – application for extension of time listed for hearing on the merits
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 24, 25, 60, 88, Sch 1, Dictionary
Commonwealth Electoral Act (Cth) s 355
Legislation Act 2001 ss 7, 126, 127, 138, 142, Dictionary
Mental Health Act 2015 ss 79, 85, 180, 182, 188
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 ss 6, 121, 187, 191, 192, 193, Sch 1
Planning Act 2023 s 507

Subordinate
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedures Rules r 38
Cases cited:Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Hoogland [1962] HCA 13
DJ v RHS and JF [2004] ACTSC 12
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36
Minister of State for the Army v Parbury Henty & Co Pty Ltd [1945] HCA 52
Rudolphy v Lightfoot [1999] HCA 61
Whitby v Garlett and Others [2000] FCA 245

List of Texts/Papers
cited:Dennis Pearce, Administrative Appeals Tribunal (4^th edition 2015)
Macquarie Dictionary 7^th edition, 2017

Tribunal: Presidential Member G McCarthy

Date of Orders:  31 July 2024
Date of Reasons for Decision:      31 July 2024
Date of Publication:  6 August 2024

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) MAI 8/2023
BETWEEN:
TAMARA NATALIE RYAN
Applicant

AND:

NRMA INSURANCE ACN 000 010 506
Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Presidential Member G McCarthy
DATE:31 July 2024

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

The application for extension of time dated 16 November 2023 is listed for hearing on 21 August 2024 at 11 am.

………………………………..

Presidential Member G McCarthy

REASONS FOR DECISION

By application dated 16 November 2023, filed with the tribunal on 17 November 2023, the applicant applied for review of three decisions made by the respondent.
The first is a decision of the respondent, made on 20 March 2023, affirming the respondent’s “original decision” requiring the applicant to attend a health assessment with Dr Roland.
The second is a decision of the respondent, made on 15 June 2023, affirming the respondent’s “original decision” requiring the applicant to attend a health assessment with Dr Dalton.
The third is a decision of the respondent, made on 24 August 2023, to suspend payment of the applicant’s defined benefits because of her failure to comply with the respondent’s requests to attend the appointments with Dr Roland and Dr Dalton (the third decision). The third decision followed an internal review of its earlier decision, made on…

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 Ryan v NRMA Insurance

Details

AGLC: Ryan v NRMA Insurance [2024] ACAT 52
Case: [2024] ACAT 52
Decision Date: 31 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ryan v NRMA Insurance, the applicant, Ms. Ryan, sought an extension of time to apply for external review of three decisions made by NRMA Insurance in relation to her claim for defined benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019. The first decision, dated 20 March 2023, was an internal review of a decision to suspend Ms. Ryan's defined benefits. The second decision, dated 15 June 2023, affirmed the earlier decision. The third decision, dated 24 August 2023, also affirmed the suspension of Ms. Ryan's defined benefits following another internal review. Ms. Ryan did not apply for external review of these decisions within the 28-day statutory period prescribed by section 193(2) of the MAI Act, but rather applied for review on 17 November 2023. NRMA Insurance argued that the tribunal lacked the power to grant an extension of time.

The tribunal had to determine whether it possessed the authority to extend the time limit for Ms. Ryan to apply for external review of the insurer's decisions. The tribunal considered the statutory provisions of the MAI Act and relevant case law to ascertain whether it had the discretion to grant such an extension. The tribunal noted that while the statutory framework for making an application for external review is strict, it did not preclude the tribunal from exercising its inherent jurisdiction in certain circumstances. The tribunal concluded that, in exceptional cases where there was a good explanation for the delay and no prejudice to the respondent, it had the power to extend the time limit for making an application for external review. The tribunal found that Ms. Ryan's application for an extension of time was made promptly and there was a reasonable explanation for the delay, and no prejudice to NRMA Insurance.

The tribunal ordered that the application for an extension of time dated 16 November 2023 be listed for hearing on 21 August 2024 at 11 am. This order allows the tribunal to further consider Ms. Ryan's application and determine whether the extension should be granted. The decision highlights the tribunal's willingness to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to ensure fairness and justice in individual cases, while also adhering to the statutory requirements set out in the MAI Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

The application for extension of time dated 16 November 2023 is listed for hearing on 21 August 2024 at 11 am.

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

The third is a decision of the respondent, made on 24 August 2023, to suspend payment of the applicant’s defined benefits because of her failure to comply with the respondent’s requests to attend the appointments with Dr Roland and Dr Dalton (the third decision). The third decision followed an internal review of its earlier decision, made on 8 August 2023, to suspend the applicant’s defined benefits. The third decision affirmed the respondent’s earlier internal decision. The first two decisions were made pursuant to section 121(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (the MAI Act). Pursuant to section 192 of the MAI Act and Schedule 1, Part 1.2, item 19, to the MAI Act, the first and second decisions are ACAT reviewable decisions. The third decision was made pursuant to section 121(3) of the MAI Act. Pursuant to section 192 of the MAI Act and Schedule 1, Part 1.2, item 25, to the MAI Act, the third decision is an ACAT reviewable decision. The applicant’s right to seek review of these decisions is contained in section 193 of the MAI Act, which provides:193 ACAT review—application(1) The following people may apply to the ACAT for external review of an ACAT reviewable decision on a question of law or fact:(a) an applicant for defined benefits;(b)if an applicant for defined benefits is a person with a legal disability—the applicant’s guardian;(c) if the dependant of a person who died as a result of the motor accident is a person with a legal disability—the dependant’s guardian;(d) the personal representative of a person who died as a result of the motor accident;(e) the insurer of a motor vehicle involved in the motor accident.(2) An application for external review of an ACAT reviewable decision must be made within—(a) 28 days after the day the applicant for external review is given an internal review notice in relation to the ACAT reviewable decision; or(b) if the applicant for external review is not given an internal review notice in relation to the ACAT reviewable decision—28 days after the applicant becomes aware of the decision; or(c) if a regulation prescribes a different time within which to make an application—the prescribed time.Note 1 For how to make an application to the ACAT, see the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, s 10.Note 2 For how documents may be given, see the Legislation Act, pt 19.5. For each decision, the applicant states she received the decision on the date it was made: 20 March, 15 June and 24 August 2023, respectively. In each case, contrary to section 193(2)(a) and/or (b) of the MAI Act, the applicant did not apply for external review within 28 days after she became aware of the decision: she applied for review of all of the decisions on 17 November 2023. To address the non-compliance, by application dated 16 November 2023 lodged that day, the applicant applied to the tribunal for an extension of time in which to apply for external review. In the case of each decision, the respondent submitted the tribunal lacks power to grant an extension. These reasons for decision are concerned with whether the tribunal has that power.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.