Widitz v AAI Limited t/as AAMI - [2020] NSWSC 314

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Widitz v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2020] NSWSC 314
Hearing dates: 18 March 2020
Date of orders: 27 March 2020
Decision date: 27 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
(1) The Assessor’s decision is set aside.
(2) The matter is remitted to the State Insurance Regulatory Authority;
(3) All exhibits and subpoenaed material may be returned forthwith; any exhibits returned must be retained intact by the party or person that produced the material until the expiry of the time to file an appeal, or until any appeal has been determined.
Catchwords: Administrative Law — Judicial Review— Error of law on the face of the record – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – Whether claims assessor failed to sufficiently disclose reasons for assessment of buffers for future treatment expenses and future care - whether the disputed conclusions were legally unreasonable - Appeal allowed
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr (2012) 83 NSWLR 302; [2012] NSWCA 13
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Scrod [2012] NSWCA 281
Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443
Immigration & Ethnic Affairs, Minister for v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18
Mulcahy v NRMA Insurance Limited & Ors [2018] NSWCA 189
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Pham v NRMA Insurance Ltd 66 MVR 152; [2014] NSWCA 22
Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; 88 ALJR 52; 303 ALR 64; [2013] HCA 43
Zahed v IAG Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2016] NSWCA 55; 75 MVR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Annette Widitz (Plaintiff)
David Ford in his capacity as a claims assessor of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Second Defendant)
State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
E Grotte (Plaintiff)
A J Bowen (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Barry.Nilsson Lawyers (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/00323424

Judgment

In August 2012 Ms Widitz was injured in a motor vehicle accident when another car collided with the rear of her car, while she was stopped in a line of traffic. The insurer later accepted liability for her injuries and in August 2016 assessor Wilding assessed her whole person impairment to be 12%. That entitled her to compensation for non-economic loss under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.
Damages were in issue and for the State Insurance Regulatory Authority to assess, in accordance with obligations imposed by s 94 of the Act. It also required the assessor to issue a certificate and a brief statement of reasons for his assessment.
The certificate and reasons issued in 2019 by assessor Ford form part of the record of those…

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 Widitz v AAI Limited t/as AAMI

Details

AGLC: Widitz v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2020] NSWSC 314
Case: [2020] NSWSC 314
Decision Date: 27 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved Widitz, the appellant, and AAI Limited trading as AAMI, the respondent. The central issue was the assessment of future treatment expenses and future care buffers under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The appellant contested the respondent's assessment, arguing that the claims assessor had not sufficiently disclosed reasons for the assessment, and that the conclusions reached were legally unreasonable.

The legal issues revolved around whether the claims assessor's failure to provide adequate reasons constituted an error of law, and if the conclusions drawn were legally unreasonable. The court was required to consider whether the assessment process adhered to the statutory requirements and if the reasons provided were sufficient to justify the decisions made.

The court found that the claims assessor's failure to provide adequate reasons for the assessment of the buffers for future treatment expenses and future care was indeed an error of law. The court held that the reasons provided were insufficient to justify the conclusions reached, and that the conclusions themselves were legally unreasonable. The court granted the appeal, finding that the assessment process did not comply with the statutory requirements.

Consequently, the court quashed the decision of the respondent, AAI Limited t/as AAMI, and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The decision underscored the importance of clear and sufficient reasoning in administrative decisions, particularly in the context of statutory assessments under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW).

Orders