AAI Limited t/as GIO v Newing - [2024] NSWPIC 171

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	AAI Limited t/as GIO v Newing [2024] NSWPIC 171
CLAIMANT:	Bryce Newing
INSURER:	GIO
MEMBER:	Shana Radnan
DATE OF DECISION:	9 April 2024
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval in the sum of $51,200; 28-year-old male; past and future economic only; no entitlement to non-economic loss; tiny avulsion fracture; right ankle now healed; closed period past economic loss; buffer for future economic loss; section 6.23; Held – proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable; settlement approved.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE Settlement approval Issued under s 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 1. The proposed settlement in the sum of $51,200 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the *Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. 2. The proposed settlement complies with cl 7.37 of the Motor Accident Guidelines.*

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

On 12 June 2023, Bryce Newing (the claimant) was a front seat passenger in a vehicle involved in an accident at Mulgoa Road, Penrith. It is alleged that the insured failed to stop at a red light intersection. The claimant was transported to Nepean Hospital by ambulance.
The injuries sustained in this accident were:
· right ankle injury – tiny avulsion fracture at the proximal dorsolateral margin of the cuboid and synovitis – anterior ankle gutter.
He was certified fit for pre-injury duties by his general practitioner Dr Montero on
16 November 2023 on the basis that he had fully recovered from his injury.
On 31 July 2023 an application for statutory benefits was made.
On 14 February 2024 a common law claim form was lodged with the insurer and the insurer admitted liability on 15 February 2024.
The claimant has recovered from his injuries according to the report of Dr Montero dated 16 November 2023. There is no claim for non economic loss and I am satisfied that the injuries suffered have not resulted in whole person impairment exceeding 10% that would entitle the claimant to an award for damages for non-economic loss.
The injuries sustained in the accident have impacted on the claimant’s earning capacity as a storage and forklift operator. He brings a claim for both past and future economic loss.
As the claimant is not represented by a lawyer, the settlement must be approved in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) and relevant Guidelines.

JURISDICTION OF THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) was established on 1 March 2021 and has the jurisdiction to determine the application.
I am a Member of the Motor Accidents Division of the Commission authorised to determine the application.

THE RELEVANT LAW

Pursuant to ss 6.23(2) and (3) of the MAI Act before the Commission may approve the settlement of a claim for damages, it must be satisfied that:
“The proposed settlement complies with any of the requirements of the MAI Act or the Motor Accident Guidelines.”
Clause 7.37 of the Guidelines states I must be satisfied as to the following:

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 Newing 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 171
Decision Date: 9 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AAI Limited t/as GIO v Newing was heard in the Motor Accident Injuries Tribunal. The dispute involved the approval of a settlement offer made by AAI Limited, trading as GIO, to Mr Newing, a 28-year-old male who sustained injuries in a motor accident. The settlement was for the sum of $51,200, which covered past and future economic loss only, with no entitlement to non-economic loss. The injuries in question were a tiny avulsion fracture to Mr Newing's right ankle, which had since healed. The closed period for past economic loss and a buffer for future economic loss were considered in the settlement proposal.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the proposed settlement amount was just, fair, and reasonable under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the settlement appropriately addressed the economic damages sustained by Mr Newing, considering the nature of his injuries and the likelihood of any future economic loss. The court had to assess the closed period of economic loss and the buffer for future economic loss in the context of section 6.23 of the Act.

The court found that the settlement was just, fair, and reasonable. It took into account the minor nature of Mr Newing's injuries, the fact that his right ankle had healed, and the appropriate calculation of the closed period for past economic loss and the buffer for future economic loss. The court concluded that the settlement was in line with the principles of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and approved the settlement in the sum of $51,200.

Orders