AAI Limited trading as GIO v Martin - [2021] NSWPIC 418

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	AAI Limited trading as GIO v Martin [2021] NSWPIC 418
CLAIMANT:	Andrew Martin
INSURER:	AAI Limited trading as GIO
MEMBER:	Alexander Bolton
DATE OF DECISION:	18 October 2021
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Approval of settlement; section 6.23 of Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant injured in head-on collision; injuries including  fracture to left fourth finger (right hand dominant) soft tissue injuries to neck, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); claimant only had limited time off work; PTSD in remission; finger injury resolved well and surgery unlikely to improve already satisfactory range of movement; settlement for $43,439.77 including statutory benefits of $9,439.77 and balance for past and future economic loss; Held - claimant recovered; settlement approved.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. This proposed settlement is approved. 2. The proposed settlement is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. 3. The proposed settlement complies with clause 7.392 to clause 7.411 of the Motor Accident Guidelines 2017.

Settlement Approval
Issued under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

Introduction

The motor accident the subject of this claim occurred on 6 September 2018, and it is now more than two years after the date of the accident.
The Claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner.
GIO, the insurer, made an offer of settlement to the Claimant on 29 July 2021. The Claimant has said that he proposes to accept the settlement and confirmed this during the course of a preliminary conference on 11 October 2021.
The Claimant requests that the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) approve the proposed settlement.
The Commission was established on 1 March 2021 and the Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) was abolished by clause 3 of Part 2, Schedule 1 to the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020. I am a Member of the Motor Accidents Division of the Commission and clause 148(1) of the Personal Injury Commission Regulations 2020 delegates GIO’s application ‘pending proceedings’ and clause 14B(3) empowers me to determine those proceedings.
Because of the date of the accident, clause 14B(4)(c) provides that the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act) and the Motor Accident Guidelines 2017 (the Guidelines) continue to apply.

Legislative Framework

Section 6.23 of the MAI Act says;
“(1)   A claim for damages by an injured person cannot be settled within 2 years after the motor accident unless the degree of permanent impairment of the injured person as a result of the injury caused by the motor accident is greater than 10%.
(2)     A claim for damages cannot be settled unless-
(a)the claimant is represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner, or
(b)the proposed settlement is approved by the Commission
(3)     The Commission is not to approve the settlement of a claim unless satisfied that the settlement complies with any applicable requirements or of or made under this Act or the Motor Accident Guidelines”
Clause 7.38 of the Guidelines says that in considering the settlement I must consider whether:

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 AAI Limited trading as GIO v Martin

Details

AGLC: AAI Limited trading as GIO v Martin [2021] NSWPIC 418
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 418
Decision Date: 18 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of AAI Limited trading as GIO v Martin, the applicant, Martin, sought approval for a settlement of his motor accident injuries claim. The dispute involved the quantum of compensation Martin received following a head-on collision, which resulted in injuries including a fracture to his left fourth finger, soft tissue injuries to his neck, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The matter was heard and determined in the Motor Accident Authority, with the authority exercising its discretion under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

The legal issues before the Authority centred on whether the settlement amount was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The primary considerations included the nature and extent of Martin's injuries, the impact on his capacity to work, and the overall compensation package, which comprised statutory benefits and a lump sum for past and future economic loss. Martin's PTSD was noted to be in remission, and his finger injury had resolved well with no expectation that surgery would improve his already satisfactory range of movement.

The Authority found that Martin had suffered genuine injuries, albeit with limited time off work. It considered that the settlement amount appropriately reflected the totality of his injuries and their impact. The compensation provided included statutory benefits of $9,439.77 and a lump sum of $34,000 for past and future economic loss, totalling $43,439.77. The Authority concluded that the settlement was fair and reasonable, and accordingly, approved it.

No further orders were made beyond the approval of the settlement.

Orders