CFD v AAI Limited t/as AAMI - [2023] NSWPIC 592

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	CFD v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2023] NSWPIC 592
CLAIMANT:	CFD
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as AAMI on behalf of the Nominal Defendant
SENIOR MEMBER:	B Williams
DATE OF DECISION:	8 November 2023
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; whether for the purposes of section 3.1 the injury suffered by CFD resulted from a motor accident in this State; whether bike involved in incident was a “motor vehicle” as defined; whether section 1.9 is engaged; whether incident was a “motor accident”; Held – the bike involved in the incident was not a “motor vehicle”; definition of “motor accident” not met; injury was a result of being pushed by a pedestrian; neither section 1.9 or section 3.1 engaged.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE For the purposes of section 3.1 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 the injury suffered by CFD on 29 July 2022 has not resulted from a motor accident in this State.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

CFD has made a claim for statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) on the Nominal Defendant. AAI Limited t/as AAMI act on behalf of the Nominal Defendant. The claim arises from an incident that occurred as CFD was riding an “e-bike” through Prince Alfred Park, Surry Hills, in the early hours of 29 July 2022 (incident). Other than CFD’s bike, there were no other vehicles involved in the incident.
The Nominal Defendant denied liability for CFD’s claim. In a decision dated 2 February 2023, an internal reviewer determined that the bike involved in the incident was not a “motor vehicle” as defined by the MAI Act, and that the injuries CFD suffered due to the incident did not result from a “motor accident” as that term is defined in the MAI Act. Given those findings, the internal reviewer determined that CFD was not entitled to weekly payments of statutory benefits under s 3.1 of the MAI Act.
CFD, who is self-represented, commenced these proceedings. She disputes the Nominal Defendant’s denial of her claim for statutory benefits under the MAI Act. The dispute is a miscellaneous assessment matter: Sch 2 cl 3(b) MAI Act.
For the reasons that follow, I have determined that, for the purposes of s 3.1 of the MAI Act, the injuries suffered by CFD on 29 July 2022 were not the result of a motor accident in this State. Underpinning my determination are findings that:
(a)    The bike involved in the incident was not a “motor vehicle”;
(b)    The definition of “motor accident” has not been satisfied;
(c)    Section 1.9 is not engaged, and
(d) Section 3.1 is not engaged.

PROCEDUAL HISTORY

A number of preliminary and case management conferences were conducted in the proceedings. The conference reports record the procedural history, including the directions made at the conferences. CFD was assisted by a Korean interpreter at the conferences and the assessment hearings.
The proceedings were listed for assessment…

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 CFD v AAI Limited t/as AAMI 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: [2023] NSWPIC 592
Decision Date: 8 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CFD v AAI Limited t/as AAMI concerned a dispute over entitlement to motor accident injury compensation under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. CFD claimed that she suffered injuries as a result of a motor accident, seeking compensation from AAI Limited, trading as AAMI. The central issues were whether the injury sustained by CFD arose from a motor accident in the State and whether the vehicle involved qualified as a "motor vehicle" within the definition of the Act. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether section 1.9 or section 3.1 of the Act applied to the circumstances of the incident.

The court's analysis began with the definition of "motor vehicle" and whether the bike involved in the incident met this criterion. It was found that the bike did not qualify as a "motor vehicle" under the Act. Consequently, the court examined whether the incident could be classified as a "motor accident" under the definition provided. The court concluded that the injury was not a result of a collision or contact with a "motor vehicle," but rather from being pushed by a pedestrian. As a result, neither section 1.9 nor section 3.1 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 applied to the circumstances of the incident.

Following its reasoning, the court held that CFD's injury did not arise from a motor accident as defined by the Act, and thus, her claim for compensation was not valid. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the statutory definitions and the nature of the incident. The court determined that since the bike was not a "motor vehicle" and the injury was caused by a pedestrian, the statutory provisions for motor accident compensation did not apply. The final orders reflected the court's conclusion that the claim was dismissed, and CFD was not entitled to compensation under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

Orders