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.
Published 6 April 2026. Updated 14 June 2026. General information by Herman Chan for Stephen Young Lawyers.
General information only, not legal advice.
Case note source and analysis
Case note at a glance
This note identifies the source decision before drawing practical lessons. It should be read with the full judgment or PIC decision and the current NSW CTP legislation, Guidelines and insurer/PIC pathway that apply to the individual claim.
- Full case name
- Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Kwarteng
- Neutral citation
- [2026] NSWSC 225
- Court or PIC division
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Decision date
- 24 March 2026
- Decision-maker
- Griffiths AJ
- Issue
- Whether a PIC Review Panel failed to exercise collective judgment or gave inadequate reasons when increasing WPI to 12%.
- Authoritative decision
- Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Kwarteng [2026] NSWSC 225
- Author / reviewer
- Herman Chan; reviewed by Stephen Young Lawyers
- Date last checked
- 24 June 2026
Material facts
- A medical assessor assessed WPI at 5%.
- A Review Panel revoked that outcome and assessed WPI at 12%.
- The insurer sought judicial review alleging defects in the Panel’s process and reasoning.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the summons with costs and upheld the Review Panel’s decision-making process and outcome.
Legal principle
A Review Panel can conduct a fresh assessment and replace an earlier certificate, provided it exercises its statutory function lawfully and gives adequate reasons.
Limitations of the decision
The judgment is not a general rule that every Panel WPI increase will survive review. It turns on the actual reasoning, evidence and statutory function exercised by that Panel.
Practical significance
Near-threshold WPI disputes should focus on the Panel record, the reasoning path, the medical evidence considered and whether the certificate actually explains the assessment method.
What happened?
In short, this decision confirms that a NSW CTP medical Review Panel is not simply checking the first medical certificate for obvious error. When the statutory review pathway is properly engaged, the Panel can conduct its own assessment, give reasons, and issue a replacement certificate. For an injured person close to the 10% whole person impairment threshold, that distinction can be decisive because the certificate may affect whether non-economic loss damages are available.
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.
Summary for claimants
NRMA v Kwarteng is useful for claimants because it shows that a Review Panel certificate can survive Supreme Court scrutiny even when the insurer says the Panel reasoned collectively, adopted medical reasoning inadequately, or failed to answer every submission in the way the insurer wanted. The claimant-facing point is narrow but important: the Court was not asked to choose its preferred medical view, it was asked whether the Panel made a reviewable legal error.
That makes the decision most relevant where a whole person impairment (WPI) certificate is close to, or crosses, the 10% threshold for non-economic loss damages. It does not remove the need for careful medical evidence, causation analysis, and correct use of the medical assessment or review pathway.
- The practical battleground remained the medical evidence, impairment method, and causal connection to the motor accident.
- The Court treated the Review Panel’s certificate and reasons as the relevant decision to be reviewed.
- The outcome should not be read as a guarantee that every Panel certificate will stand; each challenge turns on its facts, reasons, and statutory pathway.
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.
The judgment is also a reminder that judicial review is not a fresh medical assessment. A party must identify a legal error such as jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, or legally inadequate reasons. A disagreement about how the Panel weighed competing medical material will not automatically be enough.
Evidence points to check after a WPI review certificate
| Issue | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Causation | The records should explain which impairment is said to arise from the motor accident and which findings may have another cause. |
| Assessment method | The medical reasoning should be traceable to the correct assessment framework and the body part or condition in dispute. |
| Threshold consequence | Movement above or below 10% WPI may affect access to non-economic loss damages, so threshold issues need careful review. |
| Review pathway | Medical assessment, merit review, internal review, and court review are different pathways. Using the wrong pathway can waste time. |
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.
- Insurer challenges can be procedural as well as medical, so claimants should keep the decision, certificate, reasons, and evidence bundle together.
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.
Before responding, identify exactly what decision is being challenged, what time limit or procedural step applies, and whether the issue belongs in medical assessment, merit review, internal review, the Personal Injury Commission, or judicial review. If the dispute affects the 10% WPI threshold, get advice early because the financial consequence can be significant and the available pathway may depend on the type of decision being challenged.
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.