Australia: The Issue of Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations by MAS Review Panel Assessor Judicially Reviewed - Graovac v Motor Accidents Authority [2010] NSWSC 938

Last Updated: 4 September 2010
Article by Cherilyn Ribbons

The issue of relevant and irrelevant considerations by MAS Review Panel Assessor judicially reviewed

Judgment date: 26 August 2010

Graovac v Motor Accidents Authority [2010] NSWSC 938

Supreme Court of NSW1

In Brief

  • In the absence of specific legislative limitations, a MAS Review Panel has the power to make a decision based on the information before it and give weight to that information in accordance with clinical judgment.
  • To engage in judicial consideration of the decision maker's decision making process and the weight and consideration given to the materials before it, is tantamount to a "merits review" which is not within the scope of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the Act) nor the Supreme Court Act 1970 which permits judicial relief of quashing a decision.
  • Section 69 Supreme Court Act 1970 does not allow the Court to replace the decision of the Review Panel with a "better" decision.


The plaintiff sought judicial relief pursuant to Section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 of a decision made by the MAS Review Panel, in the form of a writ of certiorari (quashing of the decision).

The plaintiff contended that the Review Panel's decision was invalid as it was affected by jurisdictional error because, in making the decision, the Panel took into account irrelevant considerations and also failed to take into account a relevant consideration. The plaintiff relied upon the High Court majority decision of Craig v South Australia2 where the High Court provided a non-exhaustive list of errors a decision maker could make which would create a jurisdictional error.

The plaintiff sustained injury in a motor accident on 24 April 2007. Assessor Peter Klug assessed the plaintiff's psychiatric condition as exceeding the 10% WPI threshold on 24 February 2009.

The third defendant to these proceedings, the CTP Insurer, lodged a Review Application, pursuant to s 63(1) of the Act. The Application was based on the grounds that the assessment of Assessor Klug was incorrect in a material respect. The substance of the application was not canvassed by Her Honour, Associate Justice Harrison, in these proceedings.

The Review Panel sought to re-examine the plaintiff and requested further information consisting of the full complement of treating records from the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist and GP, as a record of treatment prior, and subsequent to, the subject accident.

The relevance of the pre-accident clinical notes was anchored in the history given by the plaintiff, that prior to the subject accident, she had immigrated from Serbia to Australia and, after settling in Australia, she had developed a psychiatric condition triggered by the events of the Civil War in the Balkan region.

Treatment by psychiatrist, Dr Sokolovic, involved prescription of Valium (a tranquiliser) and Lovan (an anti-depressant). The plaintiff alleged that eight months prior to the subject accident, her symptoms had completely resolved but re-emerged post-accident (the "relevant consideration").

Dr Sokolovic did not provide his clinical notes to the Review Panel and there was no explanation or indication from the plaintiff's solicitor as to how these records might be obtained.

Ultimately, following a re-examination and review of documentation from the plaintiff's GP contained in a Centrelink file pre-dating the accident (the "irrelevant consideration"), the Review Panel issued a Certificate revoking the Certificate of Assessor Klug and issued a further Certificate in its place, certifying that the psychiatric condition did not exceed the 10% WPI threshold. The Review Panel assessed the plaintiff's pre-accident WPI and the plaintiff's post-accident WPI in accordance with the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) based on information from the GP and the plaintiff's account of the condition given at the time of the Review Panel's re-examination

Grounds for Application

The plaintiff's Application for Judicial Review pleaded the following grounds:

  • The Review Panel erred in its failure to diagnose a pre-existing condition in accordance clause 7.18 of the MAA Permanent Impairment Guidelines (1 October 2007) (Guidelines), which provide that:

    "In order to measure impairment caused by a specific event, the assessor must, in the case of an injured person with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis or condition, estimate the overall pre-existing impairment using precisely the method set out in this Chapter, and subtract this value from the current impairment rating."
  • The Review Panel failed to discharge the power vested in it by the legislation by considering an irrelevant material when relying on the opinion and clinical notes of the plaintiff's general practitioner.
  • The Review Panel failed to consider relevant material in the form of an opinion from a trained and qualified psychiatrist, in place of the plaintiff's general practitioner's clinical notes.

Summary of Decision

Ultimately, the Court found that the Application for Judicial Review failed on the basis that the Review Panel had not fallen into jurisdictional error. The decision made by the Review Panel did not go beyond the legislative requirements, allowing an Assessor to rely on his or her clinical judgement in making the assessment.

Method of Assessment

In assessing a psychiatric impairment, an Assessor (or Review Panel) is to have regard for Chapter 7 of the Guidelines. The Guidelines are issued pursuant to s 44(1)(c) of the Act, which permits the Authority to publish any such guidelines to assist in the assessment of impairment.

Harrison AsJ stated that "the convention used in the Guidelines is that if the test is in bold it is a directive as to how the assessment should be performed."3

Judicial consideration of the Guidelines' typeface is to date unprecedented.

Her Honour went on to review the Chapter 7 requirements and relevantly, Her Honour noted that, in assessing a psychiatric condition:

  • Paragraph 7.13 of the Guidelines states that the impairment must be attributable to a recognised psychiatric diagnosis in accordance with the Diagnostic Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Edition) [DSM IV]. This paragraph was partly emboldened.

  • Paragraph 7.17 (also in bold typeface) states that "the PIRS Scale is to be used by a properly trained assessor. Clinical judgment will be the most important tool in the application of the scale. The impairment rating must be consistent with a recognised psychiatric diagnosis, and clinical experience."
  • Paragraph 7.18 states that, an Assessor (or Review Panel) must, in the case of an injured person with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis or condition, estimate the overall pre-existing impairment using precisely the method set out in this Chapter, and subtract this value from the current impairment rating.

Counsel for the third defendant contended that to judicially review the Review Panel's decision to assess the condition in accordance with the PIRS (paragraph 7.17) was to set about conducting a merits review of the Review Panel's decision which is not permitted by the Act or s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.

Her Honour did not make any further comment on the requirement of the Review Panel to satisfactorily construct a diagnosis and whether paragraph 7.13 took precedence over paragraph 7.17, effectively confirming the discretionary power afforded by The Act.

Irrelevant Considerations

The plaintiff contended that the Review Panel's consideration of pre-accident material from her GP constituted an irrelevant consideration.

In the absence of Dr Sokolovic's clinical notes, the Review Panel relied on the "irrelevant material" as contemporaneous evidence relating to the plaintiff's pre-accident condition. Referring to paragraph 7.17 of the Guidelines, the plaintiff contended that the Review Panel's reliance on Dr Tomasevic's opinion was irrelevant as he was not a properly trained specialist and therefore the material could not be substituted for that of a properly trained assessor.

Her Honour was of the view that the Review Panel's power to consider the information before it, in the absence of Dr Sokolovic's (a properly trained psychiatrist as per the 7.17 requirement) records, was discretionary.

Her Honour stated that to take the analysis any further would, in effect, result in the Court conducting a merits review of the Review Panel's decision.

Where the legislation is silent as to what material or factors a decision maker is to take into consideration, the decision maker has wide discretion as to what material to consider. The decision maker only fails to discharge his or her duty where there is actually binding legislation requiring him or her to take into account the specific material or factors when making that decision.

Accordingly, her Honour decided that the Review Panel's decision to take into consideration the records of the plaintiff's GP was not an irrelevant consideration. Her Honour stated that the Review Panel was entitled, in the exercise of its clinical judgment, to consider the evidence put to it and afford what weight it considered appropriate and make an appropriate determination.

Relevant Considerations

The plaintiff also contended that Review Panel's decision was flawed on the basis that the Panel failed to take into consideration the fact that at the time of the subject accident the plaintiff's pre-existing psychiatric condition had resolved.

The plaintiff alleged that her condition resolved 8 months prior to the subject accident. While the GP's notes did not report on the plaintiff's condition in the months leading up to the motor accident, this, in the plaintiff's contention, was sufficient evidence that her condition had indeed resolved.

At the time of the assessment, the plaintiff failed to impress the Review Panel as a reliable historian. While the plaintiff said that she had ceased taking the medication prior to the subject accident this was inconsistent with the clinical notes. She was vague with respect to dates and gave conflicting and contradictory information at times. As such, the Review Panel had no choice but to rely on the information provided by the plaintiff's GP.

Harrison AsJ found that the Review Panel had not failed to take into account any relevant consideration in assessing whether the plaintiff's pre-existing psychiatric condition had resolved. The determination was made by the Review Panel in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act and the Guidelines. This ground of judicial review fails.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's Application for Judicial Review failed on all three counts.


This case confirms that both a MAS Assessor and a Review Panel have a wide discretion to consider the information before it in order to make a decision.

Her Honour had regard for the methods of assessment set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines which permits an Assessor (or Review Panel) to conduct an assessment based on clinical judgment.

However long the term "clinical judgment" remains in force, an Assessor or Review Panel's decision making process cannot be judicially scrutinised as falling into jurisdictional error as the term, by its definition, permits the decision-maker to proceed without limits aside from that imparted by his or her training and experience.

The nature of relief offered by the Supreme Court Act 1970 is limited to the scrutiny of the legality of decision, that is, whether it was made within the scope of the power vested in the decision-maker by the legislation, and there can be, therefore, no review of the merits of a decision in the current scheme.

1. Harrison AsJ

2. (1994-1995) 184 CLR 163

3. At paragraph 14

Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (Legal Partnership Survey, The Australian July 2010)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.