Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Kwarteng [2026] NSWSC 225
The Court dismissed NRMA’s judicial review and upheld a Review Panel outcome that increased permanent impairment from 5% to 12%, confirming key principles about panel function, reasoning, and fresh assessment under MAIA s 7.26.
General information only, not legal advice.
What happened?
A Medical Assessor had certified 5% impairment. On review under s 7.26 MAIA, a Review Panel revoked that certificate and issued a new one at 12%. The insurer sought judicial review, alleging jurisdictional and reasoning errors.
Core allegations included that the Panel failed to exercise collective judgment, inadequately exposed its reasoning path, and failed to respond to substantial insurer arguments.
Decision
Griffiths AJ dismissed the summons with costs. The Court rejected all three grounds and upheld the Review Panel’s decision-making process and outcome.
Why this matters
- Review Panels under s 7.26 perform a fresh assessment and can replace a prior certificate.
- Not every disagreement with panel reasons amounts to jurisdictional error.
- For claimants around the 10% threshold, review outcomes can materially affect non-economic loss eligibility.
- Well-structured medical and causation evidence remains central in panel and court scrutiny.
Claimant takeaway
If your medical certificate is challenged or reviewed, the practical focus should be evidence discipline: consistent records, coherent causation narrative, and a clear explanation of impairment methodology.
Frequently asked questions
- What was decided in Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Kwarteng [2026] NSWSC 225?
- The Supreme Court dismissed NRMA’s judicial review challenge. The Court upheld the Review Panel decision that revoked a 5% certificate and replaced it with a 12% permanent impairment assessment.
- Did the Court accept the argument that the legal member failed to participate?
- No. The Court rejected the argument that the Panel failed to exercise collective judgment or delegated its function unlawfully. The challenge was dismissed.
- Why is this important for claimants near the 10% WPI threshold?
- The case reinforces that a Review Panel can conduct a fresh assessment under s 7.26 MAIA and issue a new certificate with reasons. That can materially change threshold outcomes for non-economic loss eligibility under s 4.11.
- Is this page legal advice?
- No. This is general information only and not legal advice.
Decision source
Full judgment: Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Kwarteng [2026] NSWSC 225.