CLO v AAI Limited t/as GIO

In the matter of CLO v AAI Limited t/as GIO, the claimant sought a review of a decision regarding the entitlement to weekly statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The claimant alleged that he was employed in his brother's car business from two weeks prior to the motor accident. The insurer, AAI Limited, denied the payments on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to establish the claimant was employed at the time of the accident. This led to a dispute as to whether the claimant was an “earner” for the purposes of Schedule 1, clause 3 of the Act.

The court had to determine whether the claimant was an earner at the time of the accident, which would entitle him to weekly statutory benefits. The primary issue was the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence provided to support the claimant's employment status. The documentary evidence included payslips and bank statements, but there were inconsistencies and uncertainties in the claimant's submissions, particularly in light of his unrepresented status and termination of participation in the assessment conference.

The court found that the inconsistencies in the documentary evidence and the claimant's failure to satisfactorily substantiate his employment status at the time of the accident led to the conclusion that the claimant was not an earner. The court confirmed the original decision denying the payments of weekly statutory benefits. The court held that the evidence provided was not sufficient to establish that the claimant was working and an earner at the time of the motor accident.

The final orders confirmed the insurer's decision to deny the weekly statutory benefits, as the claimant had not met the required threshold to demonstrate his employment status at the time of the accident. The claimant's appeal was dismissed.