Frost v Kourouche

(2014) 86 NSWLR 214; [2014] NSWCA 39

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Content of obligation
4. › Medical assessment review panel
5. › Whether panel obliged to adjourn and allow consultation with solicitor after confronting claimant with inconsistencies
6. › Whether adverse conclusion obviously open on known material
7. › No denial of procedural fairness
8. › Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 61(4)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Content of obligation
4. › Non-curial assessment bodies
5. › Whether content of procedural fairness greater for non-curial bodies than for courts
6. › Function of medical panel neither arbitral nor adjudicative
1. Motor Vehicle Law
2. › Medical assessment certificate
3. › Power of court to reject certificate
4. › Denial of procedural fairness
5. › Whether certificate to be rejected under s 61(4)
6. › Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 61(4), 63, 131
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Parker warning by analogy
4. › Whether obligation to warn of possible adverse outcome analogous to warning in sentencing appeals
5. › Analogy with Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 282 held inapt

Quick Take

A medical assessment review panel under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) discharges its procedural fairness obligation by confronting the claimant with inconsistencies and providing an opportunity to respond; it is not required to adjourn, allow the claimant to consult a solicitor, and permit the claimant to return and address the panel. The Parker warning analogy does not apply to review panel proceedings initiated by the insurer. The content of the 'substantial injustice' requirement in s 61(4) was left open.