Le v Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance

In Le v Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance, the claimant sought to determine the amount of weekly payments of statutory benefits payable under Division 3.3 of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017. The claimant operated a business as a wardrobe installer, working as a sole trader with an employee and using multiple vehicles. The primary issue was the calculation of the claimant's weekly payments, specifically the interpretation of "gross earnings" under clause 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the 2017 Act. This definition was contested in light of previous cases such as ABZ v QBE Insurance and Aktop v Allianz Insurance, which considered the inclusion of variable and fixed costs in the calculation of earnings.

The court addressed the issue by examining the statutory construction of "gross earnings" and its inclusion of all relevant earnings less all business and work-related expenses but before tax. The court referenced Saraswati v The Queen to guide its interpretation, emphasising the need to consider the particular circumstances of the business. It was held that the reviewable decision affirming the amount of weekly payments was correct. "Gross earnings" was interpreted to include all relevant earnings, taking into account both variable and fixed costs inherent to the claimant's business operations.

The court's reasoning was that the statutory definition of "gross earnings" was broad enough to encompass all relevant earnings from the business, less expenses, before considering tax liabilities. This interpretation aligned with the legislative intent to provide adequate compensation for income lost due to injury. The court determined that the decision-maker had appropriately considered the claimant's business expenses and earnings in calculating the weekly payments. Consequently, the claimant's appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was upheld.