Hui v NRMA Insurance Limited
[2021] NSWPIC 277
•4 August 2021
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
CITATION: | Hui v NRMA Insurance Limited [2021] NSWPIC 277 |
| APPLICANT: | Lam Lam Hui |
| RESPONDENT: | NRMA Insurance Limited |
| MEMBER: | Susan McTegg |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 4 August 2021 |
| CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS- Miscellaneous Claims Assessment; dispute pursuant to section 3.38 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; dispute arises out of the decision by the insurer to reduce the statutory benefits payable to the Claimant for loss of earnings or earning capacity occurring more than 26 weeks after the motor accident for contributory negligence assessed at 50%; claimant relied on witness evidence that the insured driver proceeded through a red light; insurer submitted the risk of harm was foreseeable and a reasonable person in the Claimant’s position ought to have ascertained and exercised reasonable caution; Held- satisfied that insured driver drove through a red light in breach of the Road Rules 2014; negligence by another does not extinguish the Claimant’s obligation to exercise a degree of care in the circumstances; satisfied that the degree of departure from the standard of the reasonable man displayed by the Claimant in the circumstances would amount to a finding of contributory negligence of 10%; Claimant’s costs assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | 1. For the purposes of section 3.38 the insurer is entitled to reduce the weekly statutory benefits payable in respect of the motor accident by 10% for contributory negligence. 2. Legal Costs: The amount of the Claimant’s costs assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017, is $2,008.78 inclusive of GST. 3. A brief statement of my reasons for this determination are attached to this certificate. |
INTRODUCTION
This is a miscellaneous claims dispute pursuant to section 3.38 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act). The dispute arises out of the decision by the Insurer to reduce the statutory benefits payable to the Claimant for loss of earnings or earning capacity occurring more than 26 weeks after the motor accident for contributory negligence assessed at 50%
BACKGROUND
Lam Lam Hui (the Claimant) sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident on 29 July 2020 (the accident).
The Claimant completed an Application for Personal Injury Benefits on 26 August 2020. On 2 September 2020 the Insurer accepted liability for statutory benefits for 26 weeks from the date of accident.
On 22 December 2020 the Insurer issued a liability notice declining liability for statutory benefits on the basis the Claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for the accident.
On 14 January 2021 the Claimant filed an application for internal review of that decision.
On 2 February 2021 the Insurer issued an internal review decision amending their previous decision by accepting liability but alleging contributory negligence of 50%.
On 9 February 2021 the Insurer issued a liability notice accepting liability with 50% contributory negligence for statutory benefits after 26 weeks from the date of the accident.
On 11 February 2021 the Claimant applied for an internal review of that decision.
In an Internal Review Decision dated 24 March 2021 the Insurer affirmed the decision that the Claimant contributed to the accident by 50%. Accordingly, the Insurer maintained their entitlement to reduce the weekly payment of statutory benefits by 50%.
On 18 February 2021 pursuant to section 3.38 of the MAI Act the Claimant lodged an application for a Miscellaneous Claims Assessment.
The matter was the subject of a teleconference on 2 July 2021. The Claimant was represented by Mr Young and the Insurer by Ms Crnobrnja. I directed the Insurer to provide a copy of the Traffic Light Phasing Report and submissions in respect of costs on or before 16 July 2021. I directed the Claimant to provide any submissions in reply on or before 30 July 2021.
JURISDICTION OF THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION (PIC)
I am a Member of the Motor Accidents Division of the PIC and clause 14A(1) of the Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020 designates this application pre-establishment proceedings and clause 14D(3) empowers me to assess the claim.
Because of the date of the accident, clause 14D(3)(b) provides that the MAI Act, the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation and Chapter 7 of the Motor Accident Guidelines continue to apply.
DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED
· Application for Personal Injury Benefits.
· Police Report Event No. E323680695.
· Report of MJM Corporate Risk Services dated 28 October 2020 together with attachments.
· Report of MJM Corporate Risk Services dated 10 November 2020 together with attachments.
· Report of MJM Corporate Risk Services dated 16 December 2020 together with nine photographs taken by police at the scene.
· Claimant’s submissions dated 20 April 2021.
· Insurer’s submissions dated 11 May 2021.
· Traffic Light Phasing report of Transport for NSW dated 14 December 2020.
· Insurer’s submissions on costs dated 7 July 2021.
· Claimant’s submissions dated 30 July 2021.
THE RELEVANT LAW
Section 3.38(1) of the MAI Act is in the following terms:
(1) The common law and enacted law as to contributory negligence that applies to an award of damages in respect of a motor accident applies (except as provided by this section) to weekly payments of statutory benefits for any period of loss of earnings or earning capacity that occurs more than 26 weeks after the time of the motor accident.
Section 3.38(3) of the Act is in the following terms:
(3) The weekly payments of statutory benefits payable in respect of a motor accident are to be reduced on account of contributory negligence--
(a) if subsection (4) requires the statutory benefits be reduced by a fixed percentage--by that fixed percentage, or
(b) by such percentage as the parties agree, or
(c) in any other case--by such percentage as the Commission determines (for the reasons stated) is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.
If there is a dispute about the percentage of the reduction on account of contributory negligence, the insurer is required to make the weekly payments with the reduction the insurer considers appropriate pending the determination of the dispute by the Commission.
Section 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (CLA) sets out the principles that apply in determining the question of contributory negligence. Subsection 5R(2) provides the following:
(a) the standard of care required of the person who suffered harm is that of a reasonable person in the position of that person, and
(b) the matter is to be determined on the basis of what that person knew or ought to have known at the time.
THE EVIDENCE
Police report
Constable Andrews attended the scene of the accident. The crash summary details recorded in the accident are as follows:
“T/D: Wednesday, July 29th, 2020 7.50
LOC: Croydon Road x Forest Road, Hurstville
VI: Red Holden Barina
V2: Blue Honda CRV
At the above T/D, VS was situated in lane 2/2 of Forest Road, Hurstville facing a westward direction at the traffic light intersection. V2 edged forward. When the arrow indicated ‘green’ V2 attempted to enter the intersection. At the same time, V1 was travelling in lane 2/2 in an eastward direction at the same intersection. V1 travelled through a red light, colliding with V2”
Vehicle 1, the red Holden Barina was driven by Ehab Gerges. Vehicle 2, the blue Honda CRV was driven by the Claimant. The Police Report concluded that vehicle 1 was responsible for the accident.
Application for Personal Injury Benefits
In the Application for Personal Injury Benefits the Claimant provided the following description of the accident:
“On 29 July 2020 at approximately 7.50 am I was driving vehicle with registration WXD888 along Forest Road, Hurstville NSW 2200. I was waiting at the traffic light at the intersection of Forest Road and Croydon Road. On the green light, I began to turn right onto Croydon Road when the vehicle with registration number CJO89W collided with the left side of my vehicle, causing my vehicle to spin to the right.”
Claimant’s reply to questions posed by Insurer
The investigator sent a series of questions to the Claimant’s lawyer which were translated into Mandarin. The Claimant’s replies were translated into English by Associated Translators. The Claimant provided the following version of how the accident occurred:
“When I arrived at the intersection of Forest Road & Croydon Road, Hurstville my car (WXD888) stopped at the inner line of Forest Road. A right turn-only arrow was painted on the road. When I saw green light ahead, there was a small truck in front of me, which was also waiting to turn right. The small truck turned right into Croydon Road Hurstville when there was no vehicle coming from the opposite direction on Forest Road.
My car WXD888 moved forward slightly and continued to wait to turn right. I waited until I saw the vehicles on opposite side of Forest Road had stopped, then I set off to turn right, at a speed of less than 10 km/hour, into Croydon Road slowly.
Suddenly, I felt a strong impact on my right-turning car (WXD888) from the car CJO89W which was going at a high speed. And CJO89W pushed into my car (WXD888) and caused it to spin around and head towards the light pole at the pedestrian crossing on my right. The only thought going through my mind at that time was I had to apply the brake to stop the car WXD888 no matter what. When I managed to bring the car to a full stop, it was only 10 cm away from the traffic light pole.”
Statement of Ehab Gerges
A statement was provided by Ehab Gerges, the insured driver dated 8 October 2020. Relevantly he stated:
“22. At about 7.50am I was travelling along Forest Road in the direction of Kogarah. I was in the lane closest to the centre of the roadway. There are two lanes of traffic that go straight ahead at the intersection with Croydon Road and one lane that turns left into Croydon Road. The car that hit me was coming from the opposite direct and it was in a dedicated right-hand turn lane with right hand turn arrows painted on the roadway and two lanes of through traffic. The intersection also got a green arrow to allow for cars turning right into Croydon Road to turn safely.
23. There is a school zone there but it was before the school zone started and I was travelling a bit under 50kph as I approached the intersection.
24. As I approached the intersection the lights facing me turned from green to yellow, this happened when I was only about a car length or so from the lights. The roadway was wet and I decided that it was not safe to stop suddenly as a car may run into the back of my vehicle if I had done so.
25. It was approaching peak hour traffic and when I entered the intersection the light was still yellow in my favour.
26. About two thirds of the way into the intersection, I had definitely passed over half way a speeding car just make a right hand in front of me attempting to turn into Croydon Road.
27. The other vehicle hit me at the front driver’s side lights with her front passenger side being the corner edge of her bumper bar.
28. I only noticed her vehicle starting to turn in front of me when I was almost through the intersection. I immediately hit the brakes to try and stop the car as hard as I could to avoid the collision but the impact occurred.
29. I was driving a small car a red Holden Barina CJO89W and the other car was a dark green SUV and at impact the larger four wheel drive pushed my vehicle to the left and I stopped partial facing Croydon Road and the SUV finished up at the kerb at the corner with Bethany College.
30. My air bags didn’t deploy. I can’t recall seeing the right-hand indicator on the SUV that hit me, she just came out of nowhere.
31. I managed to drive my car and park it next to the kerb at Forest Road. I got my kids who were crying out of the car and made sure that they were OK.
32. I went to check on the driver of the other vehicle. The first thing that she said to me was ‘I’m sorry I didn’t wait for the arrow’. I said to her ‘Don’t worry the insurance will sort this out. Are you OK do you want me to call an ambulance for you?’ She said, ‘No, I’m OK’.”
Record of interview between investigator and Constable Adrian Andrews
As part of the investigation undertaken by MJM Corporate Risk Services at the request of the Insurer David Care interviewed Constable Adrian Andrews of Hurstville Police Station. Constable Andrews provided the version of events he obtained from the Claimant as follows:
“I was at the intersection and wanted to turn right onto Croydon Road from Forest Road. I had a green arrow so began to accelerate because I’d been waiting at the intersection. I was edging forward and watched the two opposing lanes. In lane two of two I saw a grey vehicle slow to a stop. I edged forward slowly and didn’t see any car in lane one of two in the opposite direction. All of a sudden I was hit to the front and left of my vehicle. My glasses fell off and I couldn’t see after that. I slammed on the brakes.”
Constable Andrews obtained the following version from the insured driver:
“I was driving in lane two of two on Forest Road at the cross of Croydon Street. I was driving at approximately 50 kilometres an hour. As I approached the intersection the lights turned to orange. It was not safe for me to stop so I proceeded through the intersection. The other vehicle bearing New South Wales plates WXD888 was turning right from Forest Road onto Croydon Street and the collision occurred in the middle of the intersection. The front of my vehicle collided with the passenger side of the other vehicle. The other vehicle I assume, proceeded through the same light.”
Constable Andrews also obtained a version of events from the witness Mark Ingham which was consistent with his statement. He was adamant at the time the red car (the insured vehicle) drove through he had a red light. He stated the red vehicle was at fault.
Constable Andrews also indicated he spoke to another witness named Jessica who informed him over the phone she didn’t see anything of note, in that she didn’t see who was at fault or how the accident happened.
The investigator David Care reviewed with Constable Andrews the dashcam footage from the Claimant’s vehicle. Constable Andrews conceded if the Claimant did not have a green arrow in her favour it must mean that the traffic lights facing the insured driver must have been orange on the basis the traffic lights facing the Claimant would not turn to green until the lights facing the insured driver had turned to red. On that basis Constable Andrews conceded he believed both the insured driver and the Claimant were at fault.
Statement of Mark Ingham
A statement dated 22 October 2020 was provided by Mark Ingham. He stated inter alia as follows:
“7. I recall that a couple of months or so I witnessed an accident. I had dropped my son off at school and was on my way back to my home at Earlwood from Caringbah. I was at the back of Hurstville in Forest Road. I was following a little red car which was in the right hand lane of two through lanes. As I and a little red car approached in intersection the round light towards us was orange and it turned red. I was immediately behind the red car.
8. There was a car in the lane to our left in front of us that had already stopped at the lights and I was braking to stop and the little red car in front of me continued onto the intersection with the red light against him. I am certain that the light was red against the red car when it entered onto the intersection.
9. I saw the red car continue onto the intersection and then it impacted in the middle of the intersection with a blue Honda that was make a right hand turn and had been travelling in the opposite direction to us along Forest Road.”
Dashcam Footage
Dashcam footage from the Claimant’s car demonstrates that the insured vehicle not only failed to stop but even to slow down when approaching the intersection. It is also clear that the vehicle driven by Mr Ingham and a vehicle to the left of the insured vehicle had stopped at the stop line prior to the insured vehicle reaching the stop line.
Traffic light phasing report of Transport NSW dated 14 December 2020
It is apparent from the phasing report that the arrows at the intersection are only activated when either of the pedestrian crossings are activated. This would explain why the Claimant was facing a green light, but no green arrow had been activated to facilitate her right turn into Croydon Road.
THE CLAIMANT’S POSITION
The Claimant relies on the evidence of Mr Ingham, an independent witness who stated the insured driver proceeded through a red light. The Claimant notes the insured driver was required by law to stop at a red light and failed to do so. The insured driver was in breach of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW).
The Claimant also points out that another vehicle (driven by Jessica Rushworth) on the left of the insured vehicle had stopped at the traffic intersection and was waiting to turn left. The Claimant asserts this means she had a red light.
The Claimant submits that the light sequence of a red left arrow to Ms Rushworth would generally correspond with the light sequence of a full red light. The Claimant submits the light phasing sequence generally has a few seconds gap before changing. Furthermore, it is clear from the dashcam footage that the Claimant had a full green light (although not a green arrow) at the time she entered the intersection. The Claimant was not in breach of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW).
The Claimant submits there are two independent witnesses to support the proposition that the insured driver proceeded through a red light meaning the accident was caused entirely by the insured driver.
In the alternative, if I was to find the Claimant breached the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) in turning when she did not have a green arrow the Claimant submits on the facts of the case an application of 50% contributory negligence is excessive.
THE INSURER’S POSITION
The Insurer submits that the risk of harm was foreseeable and a reasonable person in the Claimant’s position ought to have ascertained and exercised reasonable caution in keeping a safe and proper lookout and distance by listening, looking and observing to take any appropriate steps to correct any change circumstances.
The Insurer accepts that the insured driver proceeded through an amber light. In that regard the insurer relies upon the evidence of Constable Andrews who stated that “no green arrow indicates that it would have been orange for the insured driver at the time of crossing the stop line at the lights.”
In Manley v Alexander [2005] HCA 79 (Manley), the majority in the High Court stated at [12]:
“...the reasonable care that a driver must exercise when driving a vehicle on the road requires that the driver control the speed and direction of the vehicle in such a way that the driver may know what his happening in the vicinity of the vehicle in time to take reasonable steps to react to those events…”
and
"Driving requires reasonable attention to all that is happening on and near the roadway that may present a source of danger. And much more often than not, that will require simultaneous attention to, and consideration of, a number of different features of what is already, or may later come to be, ahead of the vehicle's path.”
The Insurer submits that a reasonable person in the Claimant’s position would have taken extra care prior to entering the intersection without a green arrow. Further, reasonable care would have involved attention to all that was happening on and near the roadway that may present a source of danger as per Manley.
The reasonable care duty was reiterated in Vairy v Wong Shire Council [2005] HCA 34, 59 ALJR 492. The Court stated that the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle to users of the roadway is to take reasonable care for their safety having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The Insurer asserts the Claimant contributed to the accident by failing to give way to all oncoming vehicles in the intersection, specifically the insured driver. The Insurer submits the light was a full green light and not an arrow.
The Insurer submits that a reasonable person would have ensured that all oncoming vehicles had stopped at the intersection and that it was safe to make the right hand turn before proceeding to do so. Furthermore, it is the Insurer’s position that the Claimant should have waited for the green arrow prior to turning right. In failing to do so the Insurer submits the claimant departed from the standard of care of the reasonable man. (Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26).
The Insurer submits the Claimant’s contribution to the accident should be assessed at no less than 50%.
WAS THE CLAIMANT GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
It is agreed the Claimant was injured in an accident involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle in accordance with section 1.4 of the MAI Act.
The principles in determining contributory negligence are set out in section 5R of the CLA. Whilst contributory negligence is not governed by whether there has been a breach of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) a breach of those rules is a factor to be considered in determining whether there has been contributory negligence.
In Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel (1985) 59 ALR 529 (Podrebersek) the High Court at [10] stated:
“The making of an apportionment as between a plaintiff and a defendant of their respective shares in the responsibility for the damage involves a comparison both of culpability, i.e. of the degree of departure from the standard of care of the reasonable man … and of the relative importance of the acts of the parties in causing the damage …and cases there cited. It is the whole conduct of each negligent party in relation to the circumstances of the accident which must be subjected to comparative examination. The significance of the various elements involved in such an examination will vary from case to case.”
In Dungan v Chan [2013] NSWCA 182 (Dungan) the Court of Appeal considered the liability of a driver who collided with a pedestrian who commenced to cross the road when the pedestrian light was flashing red. Emmett JA at [15} stated:
“A driver is entitled to assume that others will observe the rules of the road. However, that does not mean that a driver may proceed at any pace he or she chooses or with complete indifference as to the possibility of a pedestrian emerging from somewhere as the result of accident, miscalculation, ignorance or recklessness. As a general rule, a person is entitled to assume that others will act in a non-negligent manner. However, where negligence is the issue, the real is question is whether, in all the circumstances, the person charged with negligence exercised the degree of care that those circumstances required. The standard of care expected of the reasonable person requires him or her to take account of the possibility of inadvertent and negligent conduct on the part of others (Wheare v Clark [1937] HCA 7; (1937) 56 CLR 715 at 723).”
It is apparent from the phasing report that the phasing of the lights did not include the operation of a green arrow unless the pedestrian light had been activated.
In the circumstances pertaining to this accident, it is clear from the dashcam footage that the Claimant had a green light at the time she entered the intersection. That being the case and in the absence of a red arrow there can be no criticism of the Claimant in entering the intersection to make the right-hand turn into Croydon Road.
Where it is clear from the dashcam footage that the vehicle driven by Mr Ingham and a vehicle to the left of the insured vehicle (the vehicle driven by Ms Rushworth) had stopped at the stop line prior to the insured vehicle reaching the stop line I am satisfied that the insured driver drove through a red light in breach of the Road Rules 2014.
I am fortified in that conclusion by the statement of Mr Ingham, an independent witness who has been adamant in stating the insured driver drove through the red light.
However, it is clear from decisions such as Manley and Dungan that negligence by another does not extinguish the Claimant’s obligation to exercise a degree of care in the circumstances. Whilst the Claimant was entitled to assume the insured driver would stop at the red light, I agree that a reasonable person would have ensured that all oncoming vehicles had stopped at the intersection and that it was safe to make the right hand turn before proceeding to do so. For this reason, I find the Claimant was guilty of contributory negligence.
However, I do not accept that the contributory negligence of the Claimant is 50%. The law does not impose absolute or strict liability on drivers[1] and any contributory negligence on behalf of the Claimant is lessened where the two other vehicles driving in an easterly direction on Forest Road were stationary by the time the Claimant commenced her right-hand turn.
[1] Mobbs v Kain [2009] NSWCA 301
Weighing up the comparison of culpability as per Podrebersek I am satisfied that the degree of departure from the standard of the reasonable man displayed by the Claimant in the circumstances would amount to a finding of contributory negligence of 10%.
CONCLUSION
I find that the statutory benefits payable to the Claimant for loss of earnings or earning capacity occurring more than 26 weeks after the motor accident should be reduced for contributory negligence assessed at 10%
COSTS
This is a miscellaneous claims assessment matter and pursuant to clause 3(1) of Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (NSW) the maximum costs for legal services provided to a Claimant in connection with an assessment under Division 7.6 of the MAI Act involving a dispute about a regulated miscellaneous claims assessment matter is 16 monetary units. That is currently the sum of $1,660.16 plus GST.
The Claimant notes an independent witness clearly identified the insured driver as at fault. However, the Insurer denied liability at first instance and even once liability was accepted applied contributory negligence. The Claimant submits the consistent changes by the Insurer have led to the legal representative of the Claimant undertaking additional unnecessary work for the purpose of this dispute. The Claimant seeks a penalty pursuant to section 6.21 and asks that the costs payable be increased by 25%.
Section 6.21 of the MAI Act is in the following terms:
(1) If an insurer denies liability (whether for part or all of a claim), the Commission may, in assessing costs on the claim, impose a costs penalty under this section if the Commission is of the opinion that there was no reasonable basis for the denial of liability.
(2) There is considered to be a reasonable basis for a denial of liability only if the denial was based on provable facts and a reasonably arguable view of the law.
(3) The costs penalty that may be imposed on an insurer under this section is a penalty of up to 25% (imposed by increasing the costs to be awarded against the insurer, or decreasing the costs to be awarded in favour of the insurer, by up to 25%).
(4) In this section,
“costs” means costs for the provisions of legal services Including disbursements.
The Insurer submits no costs penalty should be imposed as there was no unreasonable denial of liability by the Insurer at any point of time during the statutory benefits claim. The Insurer submits costs should be allowed in accordance with Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 3(2)(g) of the Regulation in the sum of $1,660 plus GST.
I am satisfied that section 6.21 of the MAI Act is not limited to denials of liability in common law claims where no attempt has been made to limit that section to claims for statutory benefits. Other provisions appearing in Division 6.4 of the MAI Act are so limited, for example section 6.19 is limited to a claim for statutory benefits, and sections 6.20, 6.22 and 6.23 respectively are limited to claims for damages.
In considering the application of section 6.21 to the circumstances of this claim it is necessary to consider whether the words “whether for part or all of a claim” include contributory negligence. Contributory negligence applies where there has been an acceptance of liability and operates to reduce the amount of weekly payments of statutory benefits. Contributory negligence does not constitute denial of a claim. Therefore, whether the Insurer had a reasonable basis for assessing contributory negligence at 50% is not a matter I can consider in determining whether a penalty should be imposed.
Therefore, in considering the imposition of a costs penalty on the Insurer I can only consider the conduct of the Insurer in respect of the initial declinature of liability.
On 2 September 2020 the Insurer accepted liability for statutory benefits for 26 weeks from the date of accident. On 22 December 2020 the Insurer declined liability for the ongoing claim for statutory benefits. Liability was not accepted until 2 February 2021 when the Insurer conducted the internal review following application by the Claimant.
The report of MJM Corporate Risk Services dated 28 October 2020 included the statement of Mr Ingham, the statement of the insured driver, photographs of the scene of the accident and the transcript between the investigator and Constable Andrews. The investigator had also viewed the dashcam footage at Hurstville Police Station.
The declinature of liability on 22 December 2020 was inexplicable in light of the evidence furnished by the investigator, in particular the statement of the independent witness that the insured driver proceeded through a red light and the advice of the investigator that the dashcam footage demonstrated that the Claimant had a green light, albeit not an arrow, when she commenced to turn right.
I find there was no reasonable basis for the denial of liability. However, where that denial of liability was overturned following the Claimant’s application for internal review, I consider it appropriate to award a cost penalty assessed at 10%.
Accordingly, I allow the Claimant’s costs assessed in accordance with the Regulation in the sum of $1,660.16 together with a penalty assessed at 10% plus GST in the total sum of $2,008.78.
Susan McTegg
Member (Motor Accidents Division)
Personal Injury Commission
0
7
0