AAI Limited t/as GIO v Li - [2025] NSWPIC 401

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	AAI Limited t/as GIO v Li [2025] NSWPIC 401
CLAIMANT:	Zisheng Li
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as GIO
MEMBER:	Elyse White
DATE OF DECISION:	13 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval; 80-year-old man crossing a busy six-lane road late afternoon in the middle of winter; insurer admitted liability alleging 60% contributory negligence; claimant retired for many years at date of accident; agreed entitlement to damages for non-economic loss only; Held – settlement approved under section 6.23(2)(b); $330,000 for non-economic loss reduced by 60% to the sum of $132,000; no statutory benefit paid; within the range of damages.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE 1. The proposed settlement is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 in the sum of $132,000.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

On 12 July 2023, Mr Zisheng Li (the claimant) was crossing the Princes Highway out the front of St George Leagues Club when he was struck by the insured driver.
Mr Li has made a claim against AAI Limited t/as GIO (insurer) the insurer of the at fault vehicle for lump sum damages.
The insurer has wholly accepted liability for the claim for common law damages and alleged 60% contributory negligence.
Mr Li is entitled to reasonable and necessary future treatment and care expenses for the rest of his life.
Mr Li and the insurer have reached agreement as to settlement of the claim for damages.
Because Mr Li is not represented by a lawyer, his settlement must be approved in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act).
The insurer has lodged the application for approval of the settlement, and it was referred to me for consideration.
The insurer and Mr Li have agreed he is entitled to damages for non- economic loss.

THE RELEVANT LAW

Approval of the settlement is required under s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act and I am not to approve the settlement unless I am satisfied it complies with the requirements of the Act and Motor Accident Guidelines (Guidelines).
Clause 7.37 of the Guidelines states I must be satisfied as to the following:
(a) the proposed settlement is just, fair, and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessment for the claim were the matter to be assessed by a Member, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by Mr Li, and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement, and
(b) Mr Li understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement.

DOCUMENTS

I have considered the documents provided with the insurer’s application including, but not limited to, insurer’s submissions, liability notice, investigation report, ambulance report and radiology reports, medical certificates of fitness, doctors’ reports and communications between the parties.
Recently, material was lodged by the insurer revising the percentage allegation for contributory negligence.

REVIEW OF THE…

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 Li 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: [2025] NSWPIC 401
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

An 80-year-old man was involved in a motor accident while crossing a busy six-lane road in the late afternoon during winter. AAI Limited, trading as GIO, admitted liability for the accident but argued that the claimant was 60% contributory negligent. The claimant, who had been retired for many years at the time of the accident, agreed that his entitlement to damages was limited to non-economic loss. The case was brought before the court for approval of the settlement amount, which was proposed to be $330,000 for non-economic loss.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed settlement amount for non-economic loss was appropriate, considering the claimant's contributory negligence. The court had to determine if the settlement was within the range of damages that could be awarded under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The court also had to consider the principle of contributory negligence and its effect on the final settlement amount.

The court found that the settlement amount for non-economic loss was within the range of damages that could be awarded under the Act. Given the claimant's age and the circumstances of the accident, the court considered the $330,000 figure to be appropriate. However, due to the claimant's 60% contributory negligence, the court reduced the settlement amount by 60%. The final settlement amount was therefore set at $132,000. The court also noted that no statutory benefit would be paid as the settlement amount was considered adequate.

The final orders of the court were that the settlement of $330,000 for non-economic loss was approved, subject to a reduction of 60% due to the claimant's contributory negligence, resulting in a final settlement amount of $132,000. No statutory benefit was to be paid.

Orders