QBE in court win over motor accident

Mr Bridge was injured in a low-speed rear-end motor vehicle accident in June 2014, resulting in back and neck injuries. He later underwent spinal fusion surgeries and claimed non-economic loss under section 131 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). His whole person impairment (WPI) had been evaluated by various medical experts, with results ranging from 0% (Dr Bosanquet) to 41% (Dr Millon’s) and 40% (Dr Abraszko).

Dr Hyde Page ultimately assessed Mr. Bridge's WPI at 18%, attributing 20% to the accident with a 10% deduction for pre-existing spinal degeneration.

QBE challenged this assessment under section 63, leading a delegate of the President of the Personal Injury Commission to refer the matter to a Review Panel, which then reassessed Mr. Bridge and concluded that his impairment was less than the 10% statutory threshold and unrelated to the accident.

Judicial review application

Mr Bridge sought judicial review of both the delegate’s referral and the Review Panel’s reassessment. He argued that:

1. The Panel made legal and jurisdictional errors in finding the injuries did not cause over 10% impairment and by inadequately explaining their reasoning.
2. The delegate failed to provide sufficient reasons and erred in referring the matter for review.

Court findings

Justice Schmidt found:

• There was no legal requirement under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act or applicable procedural directions for the delegate to provide detailed reasons when referring a matter to a Review Panel
• The delegate’s brief rationale, referencing inadequacies in the assessor’s apportionment under clause 6.32 of the Motor Accident Guidelines, did not reveal jurisdictional error.
• The Review Panel appropriately discharged its function by conducting a fresh assessment, considering evidence and submissions, and providing clear, logical reasons for its conclusion that Mr Bridge's impairments stemmed from pre-existing degenerative conditions, not the 2014 accident
• The Panel’s conclusions were not inconsistent or contradictory and were sufficiently explained.

Outcome

The Court dismissed Mr Bridge’s application. Unless the parties submit otherwise within 14 days, he is ordered to pay QBE’s costs.

Case details

• Case Name: Bridge v QBE Insurance (Aust) Ltd
• Citation: [2025] NSWSC 702
• Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
• Presiding Judge: Schmidt AJ
• Parties:
  • Plaintiff: Arnold Bruce Bridge
  • Defendants: QBE Insurance (Aust) Pty Ltd; Review Panel (Cassidy, Gray, McGrath); President of the Personal Injury Commission of NSW
• Representation:
  • Plaintiff: M Best (counsel), Everingham Solomons Solicitors
  • QBE: J Gumbert (counsel), McInnes Wilson Lawyers

Review Panel & President: Crown Solicitors