Dadisho v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance

Dadisho brought a claim against Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance regarding the weekly statutory benefits payable under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The dispute centred on the calculation of the pre-accident weekly earnings (PAWE) and the claimant's gross contractor earnings. The case was heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Schedule 2(1)(a), in determining the PAWE and the gross contractor earnings. The tribunal had to decide whether the insurer's amendments to the PAWE were legally sound and if the calculations for gross profit after expenses were correctly applied.

The tribunal examined the insurer's methodology in amending the PAWE, noting that the insurer had twice amended the PAWE in the claimant's favour based on updated information. The tribunal found that the insurer had correctly calculated the gross profit after expenses by relying on the contractor earnings period, in line with the decision in Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Iskander. The tribunal held that the insurer's final reviewable decision was affirmed, as the insurer had followed the appropriate legal principles in their calculations. The claimant's arguments regarding the calculation of the PAWE and gross contractor earnings did not succeed.

The tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and the insurer's actions in light of the provided information. The tribunal concluded that the insurer had appropriately exercised its discretion in amending the PAWE and correctly calculated the gross profit after expenses. Consequently, the tribunal affirmed the insurer's final reviewable decision. The claimant's appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal ordered that the insurer's decision be upheld.