Gul v CIC-Allianz - [2021] NSWPIC 491

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Gul v CIC-Allianz [2021] NSWPIC 491
CLAIMANT:	Eren Gul
INSURER:	CIC Allianz
MEMBER:	Terence Stern
DATE OF DECISION:	1 December 2021
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act2017; claim for damages for motor vehicle accident where claimant lodged claim outside statutory time limit; whether claimant had a full and satisfactory explanation for delay in making claim; whether reasonable person in position of claimant would have been justified in experiencing the same delay; late claim; full and satisfactory explanation; delay; limitation period; damages; reasonable person in claimant’s circumstances; reliant on solicitor’s legal advice; Held – late claim can be made as claimant had a full and satisfactory explanation for delay.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. A late claim may be made as the Claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the claim. 2. The Commission grants leave for the claim for damages to be referred for assessment.

Certificate

Issued under section 7.36(4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

The findings of the assessment of this dispute are as follows:

For the purposes of Part 6 the claimant has given a full and satisfactory explanation for non- compliance with a duty or for delay

For the purposes of section 6.14 a late claim may be made.

For the purposes of section 7.33 the claimant has given a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay and leave is granted for the claim to be referred for Assessment.

Effective Date: This determination takes effect on 1 December 2021.

Legal Costs: The amount of the Claimant’s costs assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017, is $ $ 1,710.24. inclusive of GST.

A brief statement of my reasons for this determination are attached to this certificate.

Reasons for Decision

Issued under section 7.36(5) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (‘the Act’)

INTRODUCTION

This determination relates to a miscellaneous claims assessment for a late claim for damages under sections 6.2, 6.14 and 7.33 of the Act.

The Claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 13 April 2018.

On that day the Claimant was riding his motorbike when he came into a collision with a truck, was admitted to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital where he remained until discharge on 7 May 2018.

The Claimant had multiple fractures and underwent surgery to his leg, knee and clavicle.

The common law claim was not filed with the Personal Injury Commission (‘PIC’) until 3 June 2021 that is more than 3 years after the date of the Accident.

CHRONOLOGY

October 1999 Claimant born in Turkey

June 2017 Claimant finished his high school education in Turkey and came to Australia on a student visa.

13 April 2018 The Accident

30 April 2018 Claimant submitted an Application for Personal Injury Benefits

7 May 2018 Discharged from RPAH

27 July 2018 Insurer decides that the Claimant was wholly at fault

4 August 2020 Attended the offices of Longton Legal to seek advice regarding the…

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 Gul v CIC-Allianz

Details

AGLC: Gul v CIC-Allianz [2021] NSWPIC 491
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 491
Decision Date: 1 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gul lodged a claim for damages under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 for a motor vehicle accident. The claim was made outside the statutory time limit, but Gul provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay. CIC-Allianz contested the claim on the grounds that the delay was unjustified. The case was brought before the court to determine if Gul had a valid reason for the delay and if a reasonable person in their position would have been justified in experiencing the same delay.

The court examined the legal principles applicable to late claims under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. It considered whether Gul’s explanation for the delay was sufficient and whether a reasonable person in his circumstances would have been justified in experiencing the same delay. The court also evaluated the impact of Gul's reliance on his solicitor's advice as part of his explanation for the delay.

The court found that Gul's explanation for the delay was full and satisfactory. Gul had been reliant on his solicitor’s advice, which led to the delay in making the claim. The court held that a reasonable person in Gul's position would have been justified in experiencing the same delay given the reliance on legal advice. The court concluded that the late claim could be accepted as it was supported by a full and satisfactory explanation.

The court ordered that the claim be accepted and processed in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The decision underscored the importance of providing a full and satisfactory explanation for delays in making claims under the Act, particularly where reliance on legal advice is involved.

Orders