Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 NOVEMBER 2016

Yes, insurers can change their mind about who performs a second DPI assessment

Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Contributor
Cooper Grace Ward

Cooper Grace Ward

Cooper Grace Ward was established in 1980 and has quickly become one of the largest independent...

View firm profile
Explore more from Cooper Grace Ward

The Court considered if an insurer could withdraw its agreement for a specific doctor to perform a second DPI assessment.

AustraliaInsurance
Tony Park
Tony Park
Brady Cockburn
Brady Cockburn
Damian Hinkley
Damian Hinkley
Author LinkedIn connections

In the recent case of Wright v Glencore Queensland Limited [2016] QSC 247, the Queensland Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a self-insurer could withdraw its agreement for a particular doctor to perform a second degree of permanent impairment (DPI) assessment.

The circumstances were:

  • Mr Wright's ankle injury was assessed by Dr Ness for DPI pursuant to section 179 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA). Dr Ness assessed a 3% DPI.
  • Unsatisfied with that assessment (and unable to pursue a common law damages claim), Mr Wright requested a second assessment in accordance with section 186. The self-insured employer, Glencore, made a decision in accordance with section 186(3) to agree to a reassessment by Dr Shaw.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

AFCA’S New Approach To General Insurance Claims Handling: GICOP Compliance May Not Be Enough

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has published new guidance clarifying how insurers must handle claims, including strict timeframes and expanded compensation rules. Insurers now face potential liability beyond policy limits for unreasonable delays, and may be required to compensate claimants for non-financial losses. With storm season approaching and complaint volumes rising, these changes create significant operational and financial pressure on the insurance industry.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

The Data Centre Boom: Growth, Opportunity And Emerging Risk For The Insurance Industry

Data centres have become critical infrastructure assets in Australia's digital economy, attracting significant investment while facing mounting regulatory scrutiny over energy demands and infrastructure costs. As these facilities expand to meet AI-driven computing needs, they present complex insurance challenges spanning climate exposure, business interruption risk, and cyber vulnerabilities that require careful risk management strategies.
AustraliaInsurance
Kennedys
Kennedys
Article

A $2 Million “sting”: First Civil Penalty For Breach Of The Duty Of Utmost Good Faith

The Federal Court has imposed a $2 million civil penalty on Hollard Insurance Partners for breaching the duty of utmost good faith in its handling of a home insurance claim. This landmark decision marks the first time an insurer has faced civil penalties under section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, following sustained delays, inadequate expert engagement, and failures to properly assess storm damage that left policyholders in temporary accommodation for over three years.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC Puts Motor Vehicle Premium Transparency Under The Spotlight

ASIC's Report 838 reveals significant transparency gaps in motor vehicle insurance premium communications, finding that renewal documents often fail to explain price changes adequately and that over 30% of consumers who contacted their insurer successfully negotiated lower premiums. The report establishes clear expectations for better practice in pricing disclosures and signals continued regulatory scrutiny of insurance pricing practices.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

When Is A Loss Not A Loss? Federal Court Examines Insurance Policy Exclusions

The Federal Court of Australia has determined that ANZ was not entitled to insurance coverage for nearly $117 million in class action settlements and defense costs, examining whether these settlements qualified as insured Loss under excess insurance policies. This landmark decision provides critical guidance on policy interpretation, particularly regarding when repayments of premiums, commissions and charges may fall outside insurance coverage, and how exclusions for excessive or improper charges should be
AustraliaInsurance
Hall & Wilcox
Hall & Wilcox
Article

One Claim. $2 Million Penalty. A Warning To Every Insurer.

Australia's securities regulator has secured a landmark $2 million civil penalty against Hollard Insurance for breaching its duty of utmost good faith during a 17-month storm damage claim. The Federal Court found that repeated delays, inadequate expert assessment, and poor communication constituted a single contravention—even without deliberate misconduct. This precedent-setting decision signals that claims-handling failures on individual policies can now trigger seven-figure penalties, fundamentally
AustraliaInsurance
Kennedys
Kennedys
Article

From Sustainability To Supply Chains: Rethinking Data Centre Risk In APAC

Asia-Pacific data centre expansion is creating unprecedented insurance challenges as rapid infrastructure growth strains regional water and power resources. Could intensive resource consumption by data centres generate environmental liability claims from affected communities and regulators? And are traditional property insurance models adequately capturing the contingent business interruption risks created by concentrated digital infrastructure dependencies?
AustraliaInsurance
Kennedys
Kennedys
Video

It Depends – Can A Limited Recourse Borrowing Trust Acquire More Than One Asset? (Video)

Under Australian superannuation law, limited recourse borrowing arrangements typically require separate bare trusts for each asset acquired by an SMSF. However, certain exceptions allow multiple assets to be held in a single bare trust, including identical assets purchased simultaneously, permanent fixtures spanning multiple titles, and assets legally required to be dealt with together. Understanding these nuanced rules is critical to avoid serious compliance, tax, and duty implications.
AustraliaWealth Management
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Video

National Safe Work Month – For Life – Why WHS Matters (Video)

October is National Safe Work Month, and Cooper Grace Ward's workplace relations and safety team explores why work health and safety matters for every business. Special counsel Gemma Sharp examines the legal duties of PCBUs and officers to protect workers from both physical and psychosocial hazards, emphasizing that safety must be woven into the fabric of business operations rather than treated as an afterthought.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Podcast

Podcast: Inside The Claim With CGW – Flight Risk: Grounded By A Galley Cart

Cooper Grace Ward's Damien Jarrett and Jess Byrne examine Hunter v Alliance Airlines Pty Ltd, a Supreme Court workers' compensation case involving a cabin crew member's back injury from a jammed galley cart. The discussion explores how the case evolved from maintenance and staffing allegations into a training dispute, and examines the court's approach to quantum arguments when the injured worker chose to pursue her own business rather than return to employment.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Article

First Right To Disconnect Rulings Clarify The Bar For A Contravention Of The Right To Disconnect Laws

In the first substantive rulings on Australia's right to disconnect laws, the South Australian Employment Tribunal has determined that an Adelaide hairdressing salon did not breach its apprentices' rights despite sending frequent out-of-hours messages via TikTok and Snapchat. The Tribunal drew a critical distinction between unwelcome communication and actually preventing employees from disconnecting, establishing that subjective pressure without demonstrable consequences does not constitute a breach.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward