AAI Limited t/as GIO v Ing - [2024] NSWPIC 462

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	AAI Limited t/as GIO v Ing [2024] NSWPIC 462
CLAIMANT:	Klim Ing
INSURER:	AAI Limited trading as GIO
MEMBER:	Terence Stern OAM
DATE OF DECISION:	23 August 2024
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; section 6.23; damages claim; settlement approval; claimant self-represented; injured as a pedestrian; liability admitted by insurer; no entitlement to damages for economic loss; Reece v Reece and Varga v Galea applied; Held – proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable, and within the range of likely outcomes; settlement approved.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE Settlement approval Issued under s 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 The proposed settlement in the sum of $270,000 net, is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

The claimant, King Ing (Ms Ing) was born in June 1944.
Ms Ing was injured in a motor vehicle accident (the accident) on 28 October 2022.
On 28 October 2022, Ms Ing was walking across Tasman Parade, Fairfield West NSW at the intersection with Hamilton Road when the insured driver failed to give way and struck her causing injury.
AAI Limited ABN 48 005 297 807 trading as GIO (GIO) is the insurer.
Ms Ing lodged an Application for Damages under Common Law (the claim) on 13 July 2023.
By letter dated 13 October 2023, GIO denied liability because its investigations had not been completed.
On 12 January 2024, GIO accepted liability.
A report by NSW Ambulance stated that Ms Ing was observed to be from a non-English speaking background so was only able to provide vague details. It further stated that she was observed to have visible bleeding from the bottom lip, a visible head injury, gross deformity and swelling to the right ankle and a tender right femur with no signs of a fracture.
Ms Ing was conveyed by ambulance to Liverpool Hospital.
A Discharge Summary from Liverpool Hospital stated that Ms Ing was diagnosed with a dislocation and fracture of the right ankle, right non-displaced anterolateral 3-5th rib fractures, left non-displaced anterior 2-5th rib fractures and right periorbital and facial haematoma.
At Liverpool Hospital, Ms Ing underwent open reduction and internal fixation of her right ankle fracture. Her admission was complicated by nutrition related hyponatremia.
Ms Ing was transferred from Liverpool Hospital to Holroyd Private Hospital (Holroyd) for rehabilitation on 15 November 2022. She remained an inpatient at Holroyd until
22 December 2022 before being discharged to her home in the care of a relative.
On the Application for Personal Injury Benefits (APIB) form, Ms Ing listed the following injuries she received as a result of the accident:
(a)    broken ankle – in three parts;
(b)    facial injuries;
(c)    right leg scratches, and
(d)    bruised whole right side of face (soft tissue injuries).
Ms Ing, who was 78 years old at the time, was in good health prior to her accident.
Ms Ing lives with her daughter, Sok Ny Sorn, and her…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AAI Limited t/as GIO v Ing and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWPIC 462
Decision Date: 23 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAI Limited, trading as GIO, and Ing were before the court in a dispute regarding a motor accident injury claim. The claimant, Ing, was injured as a pedestrian and sought damages for economic loss. GIO admitted liability, but contested the amount of damages sought. Ing, who was self-represented, argued for a higher settlement amount. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate quantum of damages and whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the appropriate amount of damages for economic loss under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the proposed settlement amount was within the range of likely outcomes, considering the precedents of Reece v Reece and Varga v Galea. The court also had to consider the claimant's self-representation and whether the claimant's experience as a pedestrian influenced the assessment of damages.

The court found that the proposed settlement was just, fair, and reasonable, and fell within the range of likely outcomes. The court applied the principles from Reece v Reece and Varga v Galea to determine that the claimant was not entitled to damages for economic loss. Despite the claimant's self-representation, the court was satisfied that the settlement amount adequately compensated the claimant for their injuries. The court approved the proposed settlement, considering all relevant factors and precedents.

The court ordered that the proposed settlement be approved and that the claimant receive the agreed amount as compensation for their injuries. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal principles and precedents, as well as a careful consideration of the claimant's circumstances and the insurer's liability admission. The final orders reflected the court's determination that the settlement was fair and reasonable under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

Orders