Jang v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
[2022] NSWPIC 384
•18 July 2022
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
CITATION: | Jang v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2022] NSWPIC 384 |
| CLAIMANT: | Daeho Jang |
| INSURER: | QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited |
| MEMBER: | Maurice Castagnet |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 18 July 2022 |
| CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Miscellaneous claims assessment; claim for statutory benefits under Part 3 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act); whether for the purposes of section 3.1 of the MAI Act, the injury to the claimant resulted from a collision and therefore a ‘motor accident’ within the meaning of section 1.4 of the MAI Act; Held – there was no collision and therefore the injury to the claimant did not result from a motor accident. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | 1. For the purposes of s 3.1 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act2017, the injury to the claimant has not resulted from a motor accident in this State. 2. Legal costs: The amount of the claimant’s costs assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 is $1,881 inclusive of GST. |
Reasons for Decision
Issued under s 7.36(5) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017
INTRODUCTION
These proceedings concern a Miscellaneous Claim assessment under Schedule 2,
cl (3)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act2017 (the MAI Act).The claimant, Daeho Jang, seeks a review of the insurer’s decision made under s 3.1 of the MAI Act that the injury to the claimant did not result from a motor accident in this State.
BACKGROUND
3. On a drizzly Friday morning on 6 May 2021, at about 11.30am, the claimant was driving his Toyota Tarago along Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford.
4. At a point near the intersection of Keeler Street, the claimant drove his vehicle to a stop to await a vehicle travelling in front of him to complete a left-hand turn at a set of traffic lights. The claimant contends that soon after, the insured vehicle, a Mitsubishi Fuso Canter Pantech truck, collided with the rear of his vehicle.
5. The claimant claims that as a result of the collision, he sustained injuries to his neck, his lower back and his hip[1]. He also claims to have developed a psychological injury.
[1] There is no evidence before me to indicate whether this was the left or right hip.
On 3 June 2021, the claimant made an application for payment of statutory benefits.
On 24 September 2021, the insurer notified the claimant that it declined liability for any payment of benefits up to and after 26 weeks on the basis that the incident was not a “motor accident” within the meaning of s 1.4 of the MAI Act.
On 20 October 2021, the claimant sought an internal review of this decision.
On 28 October 2021, the insurer affirmed its original decision.
On 25 November 2021, the claimant commenced these proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) to resolve the dispute.
The matter is now before me for determination.
DETERMINATION ON THE PAPERS
I conducted several teleconferences with the parties over the course of the proceedings to discuss the material provided to the Commission and to explore the availability of further evidence. Ultimately, further documents were obtained from the NSW Police Force and both parties.
At the teleconference conducted on 29 April 2022, the parties agreed that I could proceed to determine the matter “on the papers”, after they have had a final opportunity to lodge further documents. I made directions for the parties to do so. Both parties lodged further documents with the Commission in accordance with the directions.
I am satisfied that there is sufficient information before me to determine the matter on the papers without holding a formal hearing.
In making my decision, I have considered the following documents:
(a) the invoice of Stepping Stone dated 21 January 2021, concerning the installation of the dash cam camera on the claimant’s vehicle;
(b) video footage of the incident captured on 6 May 2021 by the dash cam camera installed in the claimant’s vehicle;
(c) the Motor Vehicle Assessment Report of Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company Australia Pty Ltd dated 21 May 2021, regarding an assessment of damage to the claimant’s vehicle;
(d) the smash repair quote from Col’s Bodyshop, West Ryde dated
21 May 2021, arising from an inspection of the claimant’s vehicle on the same date;(e) a series of photographs of the claimant’s vehicle taken by Col’s Bodyshop, West Ryde on 21 May 2021;
(f) the NSW Police Report dated 24 May 2021;
(g) the claimant’s Application for Personal Injury Benefits dated 3 June 2021;
(h) the signed statement of the witness San Prassana dated 5 July 2021;
(i) the signed statement of the witness Youngsuk Kim dated 5 July 2021;
(j) the signed statement of the insured driver, Matthew Hibberd dated 9 July 2021;
(k) the investigation report of Brooksight Investigations dated 6 August 2021;
(l) the insurer’s Liability Notice dated 10 August 2021, deciding that the claimant had sustained a minor injury;
(m) the insurer’s Liability Notice for Benefits up to and after 26 weeks, dated
24 September 2021 making a determination that the incident was not a motor accident within the meaning of s 1.4 of the MAI Act ;(n) the insurer’s internal review decision dated 12 October 2021, affirming its original decision of 10 August 2021 that the claimant has sustained a minor injury;
(o) the claimant’s application for internal review dated 20 October 2021, concerning the insurer’s liability decision of 24 September 2021;
(p) the insurer’s internal review decision dated 28 October 2021, affirming its liability decision of 24 September 2021;
(q) the claimant’s submissions, undated but filed with the Commission on
25 November 2021;(r) the claimant’s signed statement dated 3 December 2021;
(s) the insurer’s submissions dated 21 December 2021;
(t) the signed statement of the dash cam installer, Eric Jang, dated
3 February 2022;(u) the insurer’s request for particulars dated 8 February 2022, concerning the dash cam camera installation in the claimant’s vehicle, and the claimant’s replies dated 21 February 2022;
(v) the documents produced by the NSW Police Force pursuant to a Direction for Production, which included a police notebook statement from the claimant, a record of interview with the insured driver at his home, various coloured photographs taken by the claimant at the scene of the incident and a photograph of the rear of the claimant’s vehicle taken by the claimant in front of his apartment on the day of the incident;
(w) a bundle of medical reports and certificates of fitness (various dates) marked AD 25 and AD 32 by the Commission, and
(x) the dash cam User Manual.
LEGISLATION
In making my determination, I have considered the following legislation and guidelines:
· the MAI Act;
· Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (the Regulation), and
· the Motor Accident Guidelines, Version 8.2 (the Guidelines).
EVIDENCE
The claimant’s evidence
On the day of the incident, the claimant attended Eastwood Police Station to make a report. He was interviewed by Constable Olivia Massey. The interview was recorded in her notebook. Relevantly, the claimant stated the following:
“There was a green light on Pennant Hills Rd. The car in front was turning left at the green light. I slowed down to allow the car to turn. As soon as I stopped, the car behind hit the back of my car. My wife and I have a bit of neck pain. I got out of the car and waited for the other driver to get out of his car. He was sitting inside his car gestering [sic] “what”. I began taking photos of the otherside [sic] of the car. He got out of the car, grabbed my phone off me. He opened the drivers [sic] side door and threw my phone inside my car. He returned to his car and left.”
In his application for statutory benefits dated 3 June 2021, the claimant described the circumstances of the accident in the following terms:
“My vehicle was stationary on Cumberland Highway/Pennant Hills Road Carlingford when a truck registration number CQ16NG rear ended my vehicle. After the collision, I was a victim of road rage by the driver of the truck he threatened me and threw my mobile phone onto [sic] passenger seat of my vehicle and then drove off.”
The claimant provided a signed statement to the Commission dated 3 December 2021. His evidence may relevantly be summarised as follows:
(a) on the day of the incident, at around 11:30 in the morning, he was driving his Tarago on his way home after finishing cleaning work;
(b) his wife, Youngsuk Kim was travelling with him as a front-seat passenger;
(c) it was cloudy and a little bit drizzly;
(d) when he drove past Carlingford Court on the left, he had to stop his vehicle to allow another vehicle in front of him to complete a left-hand turn into Keeler Street;
(e) whilst stationary, his upper body was suddenly pushed forward due to an impact with a quite loud bang at the back of his vehicle. He thought the rear windshield might be broken;
(f) he got out of the vehicle to check the damage and he saw that the truck had collided into the back of his vehicle;
(g) he waited for the truck driver to get out of his vehicle to exchange details but the insured driver remained in his truck;
(h) he started to take photos as he felt that the truck driver may deny he was at fault;
(i) the truck driver then got out of his vehicle and started yelling and swearing whilst pointing to the point of the impact between the two vehicles;
(j) the claimant says that he did not understand what the truck driver was saying because of a language barrier;
(k) the claimant saw the insured driver return to his truck;
(l) the claimant continued to take photos. The claimant later saw the truck driver standing next to him swearing and threatening him with his fists;
(m) the claimant said that he leant backwards to avoid the attack. The truck driver snapped the claimant’s mobile phone out of his hands and threw it in the claimant’s vehicle, and
(n) the truck driver drove away without exchanging details.
The insured driver’s evidence
On 30 June 2021, the insured driver, Matthew Hibberd, was interviewed by telephone by an officer from Brooksight Investigations. The insured driver subsequently provided a signed statement on 9 July 2021. His evidence may relevantly be summarised as follows:
(a) he is a self-employed removalist. At the time of the incident, he was on his way to delivering furniture to an address near Batemans Bay. His truck was carrying furniture and would have been weighed at least 1.5 tonne;
(b) there was a car in front of him by a couple of car lengths when the claimant’s van moved from the right-hand lane and cut in between the car in front of him and his truck;
(c) he then noticed the car in front of the claimant’s van had started to turn left and the van then hit his brakes and stopped almost immediately. The claimant’s van came to a complete stop quickly;
(d) he braked hard and managed to pull the truck in time stopping maybe 8-10 inches from the rear of the claimant’s van;
(e) as soon as his truck stopped, the claimant got out of his van and started taking photos of the truck. He got out of his truck and he started blowing up at the claimant as there had been no impact and he knew what the claimant was up to;
(f) he told the claimant to get in his van and move on as traffic was banking right up;
(g) there was no damage to the claimant’s van or his truck. He walked between his truck and the claimant’s van as there was a gap there;
(h) his truck had a bull bar. If there was an impact it would have punched holes into the rear of the claimant’s van, and
(i) about two weeks ago, the police came to visit him at his home. He signed a statement for them.
On 6 June 2021, Constable McWhirter from Tuggerah Lakes Police Department interviewed the insured driver at his home. In a signed statemyyent of the same date, the insured driver said that there was no damage to his vehicle and that he did not observe any damage to the claimant’s vehicle.
When asked by Constable McWhirter:
“Did you leave without exchanging details?”,
the insured driver replied:
“Yes, because there was no collision.”
Evidence of witness Youngsuk Kim
The witness, Youngsuk Kim was interviewed by Jeff Jackson of Brooksight Investigations on 31 May 2021. Ms Kim provided a signed statement on 5 July 2021. Her evidence may relevantly be summarised as follows:
(a) Ms Kim is the claimant’s wife. At the time of the incident, she was travelling as front-seat passenger in their car. It was a cloudy day and it was raining a little bit;
(b) at the time of the incident, she was asleep. She woke up to her husband’s shouting. She saw that their car was stopped on Pennant Hills Road. Her husband was out of the car. She stayed in the car;
(c) her husband was taking photos of their car from the right side and the left side;
(d) she then saw the truck driver get out of his truck. She thought that the truck driver was going to hit her husband. She got out of her car. She saw the truck driver take her husband’s phone off him. She screamed very loudly. The truck driver and his passenger were yelling and swearing at her and the claimant, and
(e) on the same day, she, along with the claimant, their son and daughter went to Eastwood Police Station and reported the incident to a female officer. She showed the police officer dash cam footage from their car camera. The police officer inspected the damage on their car. The police officer said the truck was at fault and that the police would issue the driver with a fine.
Evidence of witness San Prassana
The witness, San Prasanna was interviewed by Jeff Jackson of Brooksight Investigations on 17 June 2021. Mr Prassana provided a signed statement on 5 July 2021. His evidence may relevantly be summarised as follows:
(a) Mr Prasanna runs a shop at 843 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford. This is near the site of the incident;
(b) on the day of the incident, Mr Prasanna was inside his shop when he suddenly heard yelling noise. He then looked through his front shop window and saw a small truck and a white van. He saw that the truck was very close to the back of the white van but there was a gap between the two vehicles;
(c) he saw that there were two men in the truck and a man and a woman out of the van. He heard the two men from the truck yelling at the two persons from the white van but he could not hear what was being said;
(d) he saw that the driver of the truck got out of his truck, and saw him take a mobile phone off the man from the white van. The truck driver then threw the phone inside the white van, and
(e) he saw that the truck driver got back into his truck. The truck driver started reversing and then drove off.
The NSW Police Force
In the NSW Police Report dated 24 May 2021, the crash summary details of the motor accident are recorded as follows:
“About 12:17 on Thursday the 6th of May 2021, driver 2 was travelling south upon Pennant Hills Rd, Carlingford X Wheeler St in lane 1 of 3. At the intersection of Keeler St, Carlingford, driver 2 came to a stop to allow the vehicle in front to turn Vehicle 1 collided with vehicle 2 causing damage.”
After the interview with the insured driver on 6 June 2021, the following case narrative was recorded by Constable Massey in the documents produced by the NSW Police Force:
“On the 6th of June 2021, Tuggerah Lakes PD attended driver 1 address and placed an FOD on him. The driver provided the same version as driver 2[2].
The driver stipulated that he did in fact leave the scene without exchanging detail as there was no collision.
Police again reviewed the dashcam provided from driver 2 and find it difficult to determine whether a collision occurred. Upon review of the dashcam depicting a rear view, vehicle 1 appeared very close but doesn’t appear to have hit vehicle 2. Upon review of the front dashcam, their [sic] appears to be a bump in the camera around the exact time the collision occurred.
There does not appear to be damage to vehicle 2 besides a small scratch to he [sic] rear offside. It is hard to determine whether the damage was pre-existing or as result of the alleged collision. Considering there is a bull bar to the front of vehicle 1, it would be assumed there would be more significant damage to the rear of vehicle 2 and the damage would be to the centre of the vehicle, not the rear offside.
On the 11th [sic] June 2021, police contacted D2 to discuss damage to his vehicle. He stated that the rear bumper sustain [sic] internal damage and had it fixed at the smash repairer. Police cant [sic] sight visible damage to the rear of the car besides the minor scratch offside…”
[2] The insured driver is referred to as driver 1 and the claimant as driver 2.
CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS
The claimant’s submissions may be summarised as follows:
(a) in relation to the dash cam footage captured from the camera fitted in the claimant’s vehicle, the claimant says the following:
(i)the user manual of the product states firstly, if the G-sensor detects shocks more than the setup sensitivity, the event recording begins. A total of 20 seconds of image is recorded including 10 seconds before the start of the event and 10 seconds after the event. Secondly, accidents that cause a minimal shock that is undetectable by G-sensor may not be recorded as an event;
(ii)the front and rear dash cam recorded the accident as an Event, which means there was shock to the claimant’s vehicle enough to be detected by G-sensor;
(iii)the front dash cam shows the movement of the claimant`s car after the impact detected between 7 seconds to 11 seconds of the recording, and
(iv)the rear dash cam shows the movement of the fence on the left of the claimant vehicle detected between 7 seconds to 11 seconds of the recording. As the claimant`s car was at a complete stop before the collision, the claimant says that it would not detect any movement of the fence unless there was an impact to the car.
(b) the evidence of Mr Prassana should not be accepted as to whether there was a collision between the claimant’s vehicle and the insured truck. He did not witness how the accident occurred. He did not see the original location of the truck right after the accident;
(c) the truck driver initially got out of his truck as shown in the photo taken at 11:31 and he returned to his truck before getting out of it again. The witness started to look out of his shop window after the truck driver returned to his truck, and
(d) the claimant strongly believes what the witness first saw was after the truck driver returned to his truck and after the truck driver had reversed his truck to detach it from the claimant`s vehicle before he got out of his truck again.
THE INSURER’S SUBMISSIONS
The insurer’s submissions may be summarised as follows:
(a) the insurer does not agree that the front dash cam footage demonstrates any impact at all. If such impact can be seen, this is more consistent with the sudden stopping and braking of the claimant’s vehicle, rather than as a result of any collision;
(b) the insurer does not agree that the activation of the dash cam is supportive of a collision. The user manual indicates that the dash cam will activate on sensory detection of more than the setup sensitivity. Sensitivity itself can be altered by the user;
(c) the repair quote of Col’s Bodyshop, the photographs of the claimant’s vehicle for repair (taken on 21 May 2021) and the Motor Vehicle Assessment Report show that the repair works required were the replacement of the rear bumper on background of damage to the rear left-hand side, PDC sensors and wiring;
(d) to this end, the insurer submits that the rear dash cam footage shows the insured vehicle coming to a sudden stop prior to a collision occurring. The damage referred to in the repair works is therefore inconsistent with having been caused by the incident because that area of the claimant’s vehicle was not impacted;
(e) the insured vehicle has a silver bull bar affixed to the front. The insurer submits that an incident occurring in the manner alleged by the claimant would have caused significantly more damage to the claimant’s vehicle than that which the claimant alleges;
(f) in her statement, Youngsuk Kim, discloses that it was not the impact itself that caused her to wake, but rather her husband’s shouting. It is submitted that any forceful impact such as that alleged by the claimant would be sufficient to wake her, had such an impact occurred;
(g) the insurer relies on the statement of the insured driver. He says that he braked hard and managed to pull the truck up in time, stopping maybe 8-10 inches from the rear of the van;
(h) the insured driver’s evidence is supported by Mr Prassana’s evidence that when he looked through his front window, he saw that the truck was very close to the rear of the white van, but he could see there was a gap, and
(i) the insurer submits that the circumstances of the incident have not resulted in a collision and therefore a “motor accident” within the meaning of s 1.4 of the MAI Act and for the purposes of the MAI Act.
CONSIDERATION
The issue in dispute
The claimant has made a claim for statutory benefits. These benefits are for the loss of income and payments for treatment and care.
Part 3 of the MAI Act is concerned with the entitlement to statutory benefits and the circumstances in which they are payable.
Subsection 3.1(1) of the MAI Act provides that the claimant as an injured person is entitled to statutory benefits under this Part if his injury arose from a “motor accident”.
The dispute in this case is about whether there was a “motor accident”.
The claimant says that there was a motor accident because the insured driver collided with the rear of his vehicle.
The insurer says the circumstances of the incident show that there was no collision and therefore no “motor accident”.
The relevant legislation
Before I address the evidence, it is appropriate to set out the relevant legislation.
Section 1.4 of the MAI Act defines a motor accident as follows:
“motor accident means an incident or accident involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle that causes the death of or injury to a person where the death or injury is a result of and is caused (whether or not as a result of a defect in the vehicle) during—
(a) the driving of the vehicle, or
(b) a collision, or action taken to avoid a collision, with the vehicle, or
(c) the vehicle’s running out of control, or
(d) a dangerous situation caused by the driving of the vehicle, a collision or action taken to avoid a collision with the vehicle, or the vehicle’s running out of control.”
Emphasis added
Section 1.9 of the MAI Act also provides:
“1.9 General restrictions on application of Act (cf s 3A MACA)
(1) This Act (including any third-party policy under this Act) applies in respect of the death of or injury to a person that results from the use or operation of a motor vehicle only if the death or injury is a result of and is caused (whether or not as a result of a defect in the vehicle) during—
(a) the driving of the vehicle, or
(b) a collision, or action taken to avoid a collision, with the vehicle, or
(c) the vehicle’s running out of control, or
(d) a dangerous situation caused by the driving of the vehicle, a collision or action taken to avoid a collision with the vehicle, or the vehicle’s running out of control.”
The insured driver
The insured driver said that he saw the claimant’s vehicle come to a complete stop in front of his vehicle to await another vehicle further in front to complete a left-hand turn. He then braked hard. His truck came to a stop “maybe 8-10 inches” from the rear of the claimant’s vehicle. There was a gap between the front of his truck and the rear of the claimant’s vehicle after the incident.
When interviewed by Constable McWhirter, the insured driver said that he left the scene of the incident without exchanging details because there was no collision.
The claimant
The claimant also said that his vehicle came to a stop. He then heard an impact with “quite a loud bang” at the back of his vehicle. His upper body was pushed forward. He thought the rear windshield might be broken. He got out of the vehicle to check the damage and he saw that the truck had collided into the back of his vehicle. He waited for the truck driver to get out of his vehicle, but the insured driver did not. He then started taking photographs.
However, none of the photographs provided by the claimant to the Commission depict a rear end impact between the two vehicles or any damage to the rear end of the claimant’s vehicle. All of the photographs show either the driver’s side or the off side of the two vehicles. In his own statement to the Commission, the claimant did not describe any damage that he saw to his vehicle when he went to check the rear of his vehicle.
Ms Kim
There is no evidence from the claimant’s wife, Ms Kim (who was travelling as a front- seat passenger) that she heard any sound of an impact or that she felt any impact to the rear of their vehicle. She says that she was woken up from her sleep by her husband shouting.
Mr Prassana
Mr Prassana said that he looked through his shop front window. This was after the incident had occurred. He saw the truck was very close to the rear of the claimant’s vehicle, but there was a gap between the vehicles.
The claimant submits that I should not accept this evidence when determining whether there was a collision between the claimant`s vehicle and the insured truck. He says that Mr Prassana did not witness how the accident occurred. Mr Prassana did not see the original position of the truck right after the accident. The claimant says that the insured driver initially got out of his truck and then returned to the truck before getting out for the second time. The claimant submits that Mr Prassana started to look out of his shop window after the truck driver was out of his truck for the second time. On that basis, the claimant suggests that what Mr Prassana saw, was a gap between the two vehicles after the insured driver had returned to his truck and reversed his truck to detach it from the claimant`s vehicle before he returned for the second time.
I do not accept the suggestion that the insured driver had reversed his truck after the incident. The claimant’s evidence was that he was out of his vehicle and taking photos before the truck driver initially got out of his truck. He saw the insured driver return to his truck. He continued to take photos. If indeed the truck was reversing during that period, he would have seen it while he was out of his vehicle taking photographs.
The dash cam footage
The claimant relies on dash cam footages captured from his vehicle’s camera to show that there was a rear end collision between his vehicle and the insured truck in the incident.
The claimant explains that if the camera sensor of the dash cam detects a “shock”, the device triggers the recording of an event. In the case of this incident, the device recorded a rear dash cam footage and a front dash cam footage each lasting about
20 seconds. Each recording is made up of 10 seconds of footage before the start of the event and 10 seconds after the event.I have viewed the footages. I do not consider that it shows a collision or any impact between the two vehicles. Rather, I find that the rear dash cam footage supports the insured driver’s evidence that he stopped his truck just in time to avoid a collision with the rear of the claimant’s vehicle.
From my viewing of the front view dash cam, I can see no perceptible jolt. Any minor jolt would be consistent with braking and stopping the vehicle.
The rear view dash cam shows the insured driver’s vehicle stopping suddenly. It appears to bounce in a manner inconsistent with impacting the claimant’s vehicle.
The repair quote
The claimant provided evidence of the “damage” to the rear of his vehicle by way of a repair quote of Col’s Bodyshop issued on 21 May 2021. The repairer took various photographs of the claimant’s vehicle on that day. This was two weeks after the incident.
A Motor Vehicle Assessment Report of the claimant’s property damage insurer also issued on 21 May 2021, was also in evidence. This document shows that the property damage insurer gave approval for the repairs to proceed following an inspection of the claimant’s vehicle by an assessor on that day.
The extent to the repairs to be carried out was the replacement of the rear bumper with PDC sensors and wiring, followed by mix and match painting to the rear bumper and tow hook cap. The parts for the rear bumper with sensor holes were quoted at $296.43 plus GST and the labour which included mix and match painting was quoted at $429. The total cost of the repairs including miscellaneous allowances was $791.43 plus GST.
I have reviewed these documents and the photographs. I find difficult to accept that the subject repairs resulted from a collision on the day of the incident.
Ms Kim said that when she attended Eastwood Police Station with the claimant and her family on the day of the incident, the female police officer inspected the damage on their vehicle. That would be Constable Olivia Massey.
In the narrative recorded by Constable Massey, it did not appear to her that there was any damage to the claimant’s vehicle except a small scratch to the rear offside. I prefer Constable Massey’s account and find that there was no damage that was caused to the claimant’s vehicle by the insured driver.
Finding
I accept the insurer’s submission that any injury to the claimant was not the result of a collision.
COSTS
The claimant was unsuccessful in this application. However, success is not a prerequisite to the claimant recovering regulated costs from the insurer.
There is no reason why the claimant should not be allowed his legal costs in the regulated amount.
I allow the claimant’s costs in the regulated amount of $1,710 plus GST.
CONCLUSION
My determination of the Miscellaneous Claim is as follows:
For the purposes of s 3.1 of the MAI Act, the injury to the claimant has not resulted from a motor accident in this State.
The amount of the claimant’s costs assessed in accordance with the Regulation is $1,881 inclusive of GST.
Member
Maurice Castagnet
Motor Accidents Division
Personal Injury Commission
0
0
0