Amir Fazel

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that proper notice was provided.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial notices complied with the Schedule's requirements.

The applicant failed to prove entitlement to non-earner benefits or that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were denied.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her psychological impairments and pre-existing conditions warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological impairment caused by the accident or a documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological and musculoskeletal assessments, which concluded the applicant suffered only minor soft tissue injuries and no diagnosable psychological condition.

As the MIG limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and the claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found he had not proved he sustained a non-minor injury and denied certain statutory accident benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator failed to consider evidence of chronic pain and psychological impairment, and breached procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of fact or law were made and no breach of procedural fairness occurred, noting the applicant was improperly attempting to reargue his case.

The applicant, who suffered catastrophic injuries as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident, sought a medical benefit for a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The respondent insurer denied the plan, relying on its expert assessors who opined that home-directed exercises were sufficient and that the applicant's neurological impairment was fixed.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating multidisciplinary team, finding the professionally directed physiotherapy reasonable and necessary to manage and prevent regression of the applicant's conditions.

The treatment plan was approved with interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied caregiver and housekeeping benefits in 2011.

The applicant filed an application to dispute the denial more than two years later, arguing the limitation period should not apply because the denial notice was deficient.

The Tribunal found the denial notice was proper, as it included the required reasons within the enclosed medical reports and complied with the Schedule's requirements.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act, finding no bona fide intention to dispute the denial within the limitation period.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The statutory third party, Economical Mutual Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to serve and file a jury notice after the close of pleadings.

The parties had previously entered into a consent judgment settling the plaintiffs' damages and agreeing that the remaining insurance coverage issues would be tried by a judge.

The court found that the third party's motion was a tactical attempt to avoid the consequences of the consent judgment and have the issue of the defendant's intent tried by a jury.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that granting leave would rewrite the terms of the consent judgment and cause substantive prejudice to the responding insurer.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside an administrative dismissal of their personal injury action.

The action was dismissed in 2007 due to the inaction of their former counsel, and a motion to set aside the dismissal was not brought until 2013.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the conclusion that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by the significant delay, and that actual prejudice to the respondent's ability to defend the action had been established.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim against the defendant driver.

The plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant's vehicle when an oncoming vehicle crossed the centre line, creating an emergency.

The defendant steered left to avoid a collision, but the oncoming vehicle swerved back, resulting in a head-on collision.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' and the 'agony of collision' principle, concluding that the conflicting expert evidence and the factual determination of whether the defendant's evasive action was reasonable in the circumstances required a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff invested in a property with the defendant Esmail, creating a trust relationship.

Esmail failed to keep proper accounts, transferred the property to his wife Yasmin to defeat creditors, and eventually sold the property without properly accounting to the plaintiff.

The solicitor acting on the sale, Jiwa, ignored the trust declaration and failed to protect the plaintiff's interests.

The court found Esmail and Yasmin liable for breach of trust and fiduciary duty, and Jiwa liable for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding damages to the plaintiff.