Legal Research
Cases
AAG v IAG Limited

AAG v IAG Limited

Case [2021] NSWPIC 57 29 March 2021

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	AAG v IAG Limited [2021] NSWPIC 57
APPLICANT:	AAG
RESPONDENT:	IAG Limited
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	John Harris
DATE OF DECISION:	29 March 2021
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS- Claims assessment; dispute about the amount of damages to be paid to the applicant under section 7.36 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; riding a bicycle; insurer wholly admitted liability; multiple rib fractures, fracture through the right scapula, full thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon, torn hamstring tendon, severely affected psychologically; not able to cycle, had ceased almost all aspects of work and suffered from severe upper body restriction; crutches and a walking stick for about 12 months; working with restricted light duties in a sheltered environment; earning capacity assessment occupations not involving physical work; Deed of Agreement for the sale and purchase of shares in the business; assets of the business; Held- applicant entitled to non-economic loss damages and economic loss damages; both a director and employee of the business; loss in value of the shares of the company; no allowance made for sale of the motor vehicle.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Under sub-sections 7.36 (3) and 7.36 (4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act), the amount of damages for this claim are $344,218.89 after the deduction of statutory benefits. 2. The Claimant is entitled to his regulated costs and disbursements in accordance with the Reasons. In the event of any dispute, the parties have liberty to apply.

Reasons for Decision

Issued under section 7.36(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

BACKGROUND

AAG (the Claimant) suffered injuries on 10 April 2018 whilst riding a bicycle on a designated bike lane along Anzac Parade, Maroubra.
The injuries arose from a motor vehicle accident when the insured made a right-hand turn and collided with the Claimant who was thrown from the bicycle.
This is an assessment of damages pursuant to s 7.36 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act). The Insurer wholly admitted liability for the claim for damages.

EVIDENCE

Nature of the Injuries and Medical Treatment

The Claimant was in excellent health prior to the motor vehicle accident and very active in several sporting pursuits. He was in full-time employment and the owner of
XXX Automotive Pty Ltd (the business).
The ambulance medical record noted that the Claimant was initially unresponsive at the scene and in obvious discomfort and distress.
An x-ray dated 21 April 2018 showed multiple rib fractures. An x-ray dated 18 May 2018 referred to fractures of the right 2^nd to 7^th ribs, the 3^rd rib fracture being moderately displaced and a mildly displaced transverse fracture through the right scapula.
A right shoulder ultrasound dated 26 April 2018 noted marked movement limitation since the motor vehicle accident and recorded a full thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon.
A CT scan of the cervical spine dated 4 September 2018 revealed multilevel degenerative changes.
An MRI scan of the left thigh revealed a torn hamstring tendon with a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AAG v IAG Limited

Details

AGLC: AAG v IAG Limited [2021] NSWPIC 57
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 57
Decision Date: 29 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of AAG v IAG Limited, the parties were in dispute over the assessment of damages to be paid to the applicant following a motor accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, who had been riding a bicycle at the time of the accident, suffered multiple rib fractures, a fracture through the right scapula, a full thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon, a torn hamstring tendon, and was severely affected psychologically. The insurer had admitted full liability for the accident. The dispute centred on the amount of damages to be awarded under section 7.36 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate assessment of non-economic loss and economic loss damages for the applicant. The court needed to consider the extent of the applicant's physical injuries, psychological impact, and the resulting impact on their ability to work and engage in personal activities. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the loss in value of the applicant's shares in a business and determine if any allowance should be made for the sale of the motor vehicle. The applicant argued for a comprehensive assessment of both non-economic and economic loss, while the insurer contended for a more limited assessment.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to non-economic loss damages to compensate for the physical injuries and psychological impact of the accident. Additionally, the court awarded economic loss damages, taking into account the applicant's role as both a director and employee of the business, as well as the loss in value of the shares of the company. However, the court did not make any allowance for the sale of the motor vehicle, finding that it was not directly related to the accident. The court's decision provided a detailed assessment of the applicant's injuries and their impact on their ability to work and engage in personal activities, as well as a careful evaluation of the economic loss suffered by the applicant.

The final orders of the court included the award of non-economic loss damages, economic loss damages for the loss in value of the shares of the company, and costs of the proceedings to be paid by the insurer. The court's decision provided a comprehensive assessment of the applicant's injuries and their impact on their ability to work and engage in personal activities, as well as a careful evaluation of the economic loss suffered by the applicant.

Orders