Liton v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Liton v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 547
CLAIMANT:	Md Robul Islam Liton
INSURER:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
MEMBER:	Bianca Montgomery-Hribar
DATE OF DECISION:	15 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for statutory benefits; consideration of section 6.13; dispute regarding whether claimant has a full and satisfactory explanation for delay in making claim; Karambelas v Zaknic (No 2), and Rahman v Al-Maharmeh considered and applied; consideration of full and satisfactory explanation; claim made within three years after date of the motor vehicle accident; Held – claimant’s explanation is full and satisfactory; claim made within three years of date of accident; claim may be made.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE 1. In accordance with s 6.13(3)(a) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) is satisfied that the claimant has a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making his claim for statutory benefits, and the claim is made within three years after the date of the motor accident. 2. The insurer is to pay the claimant’s legal costs in the amount of $2,031 plus GST, and disbursements in the amount of $163.94 inclusive of GST. A statement setting out the Commission’s reasons is included with this certificate.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

Md Robul Liton (claimant) was involved in a motor accident on 11 July 2024 on the M5 Motorway near the Henry Lawson Drive exit. He was a rear seat passenger in a vehicle which collided into the rear of the vehicle in front, which formed part of a multiple car accident involving nine vehicles (accident).
On 18 November 2024, Mr Liton lodged an application for statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAI Act) dated 14 November 2024 on Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (the insurer).
The insurer has denied liability on the basis that Mr Liton’s application was lodged outside the required timeframe and without a full and satisfactory explanation. Mr Liton accepts that his application was lodged outside the required timeframe. However, he submits that it should be accepted as his explanation is both full and satisfactory.
This matter requires determination of whether Mr Liton’s explanation is full and satisfactory for the purposes of s 6.13(3) of the MAI Act.
As this dispute has been the subject of an internal review, s 7.41 of the MAI Act is satisfied and the jurisdiction of the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) is enlivened. This dispute constitutes a miscellaneous claims assessment matter under schedule 2, cl 3(h) of the MAI Act.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Section 6.13 of the MAI Act provides for the time for the making of a claim for statutory benefits and reads:
“6.13   Time for making of claims for statutory benefits
(1)    A claim for statutory benefits must be made within 3 months after the date of the motor accident to which the claim relates. The regulations may amend this subsection to change the period within which the claim must be made.
(2)    If a claim for statutory benefits is not made within 28 days after the date of the motor accident, weekly payments of statutory benefits are not payable in respect of any period before the claim is made, unless permitted by the regulations.
(3)    However, a claim for statutory benefits may be made after the time required by subsection (1) if the claimant provides a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the claim, and either—
(a)the claim is made within 3 years after the date of the motor accident, or
(b)the claim is in respect of the death of a person or injury resulting in a degree of permanent impairment of the injured person that is greater than 10%.
(4) In addition, a claim for statutory benefits under Division 3.4 in respect of an injury for which compensation under Division 3 (Compensation for medical, hospital and rehabilitation expenses etc) of Part 3 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 has been payable may be made within 3 months after the compensation ceases to be payable.”
The definition of “full and satisfactory explanation” for the purposes of Part 6 of the MAI Act is set out in s 6.2 and provides:
“6.2   Meaning of “full and satisfactory explanation” by claimant
(1)     For the purposes of this Part, a full and satisfactory explanation by a claimant for non-compliance with a duty or for delay is a full account of the conduct, including the actions, knowledge and belief of the claimant, from the date of the accident until the date of providing the explanation.
(2)     The explanation is not a satisfactory explanation unless a reasonable person in the position of the claimant would have failed to have complied with the duty or would have been justified in experiencing the same delay.”

On the papers

Section 52(3) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW) (PIC Act) provides:
“(3) If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act and enabling legislation without holding any conference or formal hearing.”
At the preliminary conference on 11 August 2025, the parties confirmed that they both considered it appropriate for the dispute to be determined on the papers and without holding a formal hearing.
Having considered s 52 of the PIC Act, Procedural Direction PIC2 and the documents before me, I am satisfied that I have sufficient information available to me to allow me to determine the issues in dispute ‘on the papers’ and without holding a formal hearing, and that this is the appropriate course in the circumstances.

SUBMISSIONS

Claimant’s submissions

Mr Liton has put on written submissions dated 8 July 2025.
Mr Liton submits that he arrived in Australia on 26 May 2023 and at the time of the accident had no knowledge of motor accident injury law or procedure.
Mr Liton submits that he was unaware of the three-month time limit to make a claim imposed by s 6.13 of the MAI Act due to the following:
(a)    he does not speak or read English, making it impossible to understand legal notices, information booklets or claim forms without assistance;
(b)    he was transported via ambulance following the accident and was provided with no particulars of the accident;
(c)    he suffered serious injury that required a significant period of time to improve;
(d)    he was reliant on the at-fault driver for the details of the accident and the relevant compulsory third party (CTP) insurer. This information was not provided until November 2024;
(e)    he did not know a compensation scheme existed, and was unfamiliar with the importance of seeing a lawyer or making a claim within the prescribed timeframe;
(f)    he did not have access to legal assistance until approximately August 2024, after which he was informed of the significance of obtaining information relating to the accident, and
(g)    he and his friend attempted to obtain details from the driver, however the driver consistently avoided or refused to provide the relevant information until November 2024.
It is submitted that Mr Liton has a full and satisfactory explanation within the meaning of s 6.13(2)[1] as he was unaware of his legal rights or timeframes due to:
(a)    a language barrier;
(b)    a lack of cooperation of from the at-fault driver;
(c)    limited to no understanding of the legal system;
(d)    a reluctance from the at-fault driver to provide relevant information, and
(e)    prompt action once the information became available.
[1] It has been assumed that the claimant’s reference to s 6.13(2) of the MAI Act is typographical error, and this submission has been treated as being in reference to s 6.13(3) of the MAI Act.
Mr Liton submits that his delay was not due to deliberate neglect or a lack of concern. Once aware of the process, Mr Liton acted swiftly to engage assistance to lodge his claim.
At the preliminary conference on 11 August 2025, Mr Liton’s legal representative confirmed that he had obtained the file from Mr Liton’s previous solicitors, Gajic Lawyers. He said that it simply contained the claim form with no other documentation or correspondence.

Insurer’s submissions

The insurer relies on written submissions dated 30 July 2025. The insurer submits that Mr Liton has not provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making his claim.
The insurer notes that Mr Liton was required to lodge an application for personal injury benefits by 11 October 2024. His claim was not lodged until 18 November 2024. This was done by Mr Liton’s former solicitors, Gajic Lawyers.
On 21 November 2024, 4 December 2024 and 12 December 2024, the insurer says that it sought further information from Mr Liton as to his explanation for the delay in lodging his claim. The insurer subsequently issued a liability notice up to 52 weeks on 16 December 2024 where it advised liability was not accepted due to his claim being lodged outside the required timeframe and as a full and satisfactory explanation had not been provided.
On 4 April 2025, the insurer says it issued a Liability Notice after 52 weeks again denying liability on the basis that Mr Liton had still not provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging his claim.
On 28 April 2025, an internal review of this decision was sought by Mr Liton. The internal review affirmed the decision that a full and satisfactory explanation had not been provided.
The insurer notes that Mr Liton refers to the driver as “Ashraful” but later learnt his legal name is Elangovan Muthukumaran.
The insurer notes that the police report refers to the vehicle Mr Liton was travelling in as Accident Unit 9, and that there was only one occupant in this vehicle at the time of the accident. However, the ambulance report confirms that Mr Liton “was the back seat driver of the last vehicle in a multiple car vehicle accident on the M5” [sic].
The insurer describes the accident report and that Mr Liton was transported to Bankstown Hospital by ambulance. His limited English was noted. He was discharged on 15 July 2024.
The insurer refers to Mr Liton’s subsequent attendance on Dr Naim Islam of Lakemba Family Health Care on 18 July 2024, when he advised Dr Islam of his involvement in the accident. The insurer submits that, on the same day, Dr Islam prepared a certificate of fitness. The insurer submits that Dr Islam provided Mr Liton with further certificates of fitness on 30 July 2024, 9 August 2024 and 3 September 2024.
Mr Liton’s subsequent medical attendances are noted by the insurer.
The insurer’s submissions extract Mr Liton’s statement from his application for personal injury benefits. The insurer also references Mr Liton’s application for internal review, which sets out an explanation for his delay in lodging his claim. The insurer also refers to and extracts aspects of Mr Liton’s statement dated 23 June 2025 and the statement from Mr Liton’s friend, Mahbub Alam, dated 25 June 2025.
The insurer refers to the wording of s 6.2 of the MAI Act and Karambelas v Zaknic (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 443 where the meaning of subsection 66(2) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, the predecessor to s 6.2, was discussed.
The insurer submits that Mr Liton is required to provide a “full” explanation for the delay, which accounts for Mr Liton’s conduct, including his actions, knowledge and belief from the date of the accident until the date of providing the explanation.
The insurer submits that such an explanation has not been provided, and there are periods of time from the date of the accident which are unaccounted for by Mr Liton.
Relevantly, the insurer submits that Mr Liton reports he was first advised by his friend Mr Alam of his rights to make a CTP claim in mid-August 2024 and that Mr Alam assisted him by contacting Gajic Lawyers to enquire about Mr Liton’s possible entitlements.
The insurer submits that the statement of Mr Alam is contradictory in part. The insurer notes that Mr Alam initially states that he told Mr Liton he may be able to make a claim in approximately August 2024. Later in his statement, Mr Alam says he first spoke to Mr Liton about two or three months after the accident, and did not speak to Mr Liton before this due to his condition.
The insurer submits that, as both Mr Liton and Mr Alam indicate that the first conference with Gajic Lawyers took place in August 2024, it is not possible that it was “two or three months” after the accident when the topic of a CTP claim first arose. The insurer further submits that, despite several requests, Mr Liton has not provided an exact date on which the initial conference with Gajic Lawyers took place.
The insurer refers to the certificate of fitness provided to Mr Liton by Dr Islam on 18 July 2024. The insurer submits that this is a form specifically used by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) in personal injury claims, which raises the possibility and, in the insurer’s submission, the great likelihood that the claimant was advised of his possible entitlements by Dr Islam as early as one week after the accident.
The insurer refers to the profile of Dr Islam which states he is fluent in Bengali, the claimant’s native language.
The insurer therefore submits that Mr Liton’s knowledge of the three-month limit arose one week after the subject accident.
The insurer submits that in the event it is accepted that Mr Liton first became aware of his possible entitlements in August 2024, being at the time he contacted Gajic Lawyers, it must be assumed it was also at this time that Mr Liton was advised of the three-month time limit that applied.
The insurer submits that Mr Liton has not confirmed when he first became aware of the three-month time limit.
The insurer submits that, after the initial contact with Gajic Lawyers, Mr Liton alleges it took several months to obtain the relevant details such as the registration number from the driver at fault, due to the driver being avoidant and reluctant to provide the information.
The insurer submits that Mr Liton alleges the driver provided the requested information in late October or early November and that, thereafter, he was able to apply for a police report.
The insurer submits that Mr Liton has not accounted for the time between August 2024 and early November 2024 in full. The insurer submits that Mr Liton has not provided any evidence of the specific attempts made to ascertain the necessary details of the at fault driver during this period. The insurer submits that the full actions of Mr Liton from the date of the accident to the date the claim was lodged are unclear and unaccounted for.
The insurer submits that Mr Litons account is therefore not “full”.
The insurer submits that, in the absence of a “full” explanation for the delay, it cannot be assessed whether Mr Liton’s explanation is satisfactory.
However, in any event, the insurer submits that his explanation is not satisfactory. While the insurer acknowledges Mr Liton has a language barrier and had only been in Australia for 14 months at the time of the accident, the insurer submits that Mr Liton had access to people and resources to support him and assist with translation.
Further, the insurer submits that there are a number of additional steps that a reasonable person in Mr Liton’s position would have taken to try to ascertain the registration details of the vehicle sooner, rather than simply waiting for the driver to cooperate. This would have included making enquiries with NSW Police or contacting his place of employment, noting the driver was a colleague.
The insurer submits that Mr Liton did not assert that any additional steps were carried out to attempt to ascertain the registration details of the vehicle, other than simply attempting to call the driver.
The insurer submits that, once Mr Liton realised that the driver was not cooperating, a reasonable person would have turned their minds to alternative means of attempting to obtain the registration details, especially since he was aware of the time limit that applied since at least 18 July 2024 or at the latest since August 2024.
The insurer therefore submits that Mr Liton’s explanation for the delay is not satisfactory.

Further submissions

On 11 September 2025, I provided Mr Liton with an opportunity to provide a further statement to explain any relevant conduct between mid-August 2024 and 14 November 2024. I also informed the parties that I proposed to proceed on the assumption that:
(a) Mr Alam’s conduct is as set out in the statement dated 25 June 2025, and
(b) Gajic Lawyers did not otherwise progress the matter between the first consultation in August 2024 and November 2024.
Both parties were provided with an opportunity to make submissions addressing the proposed assumptions. The insurer was also provided with an opportunity to make submissions in respect of the claimant’s further statement. No further submissions were received from either party.

EVIDENCE

The documents contained in the bundles lodged by both Mr Liton and insurer have been considered. While all documents have been considered for the purposes of this decision, not all documents have been summarised.

Application for personal injury benefits

Mr Liton’s application for personal injury benefits dated 14 November 2024 records the accident date as 8 July 2024. As submitted by the insurer, it is assumed this is a typographical error given the contemporaneous documents regarding the accident, such as hospital and police records, note the date as 11 July 2024.
Mr Liton describes the accident as “I was a rear seat passenger in vehicle involved in a car pile up in front of vehicle which I was travelling collided” [sic].
Mr Liton lists two of the drivers involved, with “Ashraf Islam” being identified by Mr Liton as the driver of the vehicle most at fault.
In respect of the explanation of his delay, Mr Liton notes:
“I have recently arrived in Australia and I am not aware of the laws of Australia and that I was entitled to lodge a claim for injuries from a car accident any time limits to apply. My friend advised me to see a solicitor about my accident in mid August 2024. My friend contacted Gajic Lawyers and I was advised of my right to make a claim. However, as I was not the driver of the vehicle I was travelling and I was no longer in contact with the driver, I did not have the registration numbers of the vehicles involved in the accident or Police Event Number. I made enquiries with and was able to obtain Police Event number and registration number to apply for police report in late October 2024. A police report was obtained on 12 November 2024” [sic].

NSW Police Report

The report of NSW Police dated 11 July 2024 notes the accident involved nine vehicles. The individual alleged by Mr Liton to be the driver of the relevant vehicle is noted on page 8.

NSW Ambulance Report

The NSW Ambulance Report dated 11 July 2024 regarding the treatment of Mr Liton immediately post-accident has been considered.

Claimant’s statements

Mr Liton has provided a signed statement dated 23 June 2025 and a supplementary signed statement dated 23 September 2025.
Mr Liton says his native language is Bengali. He came to Australia on 26 May 2023. His wife and children still live in Bangladesh.
Mr Liton says that he was employed by MJA Property Renovation as a painter at the time of the accident. The driver of the vehicle was a person said to be called Ashraful. Mr Liton did not know his surname. Ashraful is a partner of MJA Property Renovation.
When driving home from work for the day on the M5 Motorway Milperra, the driver collided with the rear of another vehicle, causing a chain reaction of collisions involving eight or nine vehicles.

Mr Liton says that he was conveyed by ambulance to Bankstown Hospital where he remained until 15 July 2024.
After Mr Liton was discharged, he consulted his general practitioner, Dr Naim Islam, on 18 July 2024. Mr Liton says he was advised by Dr Islam not to work for at least three months.
Mr Liton says he has very limited English language skills and cannot read English.
Mr Liton says he is a recent arrival to Australia and is not familiar with the laws relating to claiming benefits after a motor accident.
Mr Liton says he first became aware he could possibly make a claim from a friend of his, Mahbub Alam. In approximately August 2024, Mr Alam told Mr Liton that he may have a right to claim some benefits because of the accident. Mr Alam then contacted Gajic Lawyers.
Mr Liton and Mr Alam had a phone conversation with Gajic Lawyers but at the time he did not have any details of the driver at fault or the registration number of the vehicle. Mr Liton says he only had the name of the driver and his phone number.
Mr Liton says that Mr Alam tried to contact the driver, Ashraful, many times after the accident but he “was avoiding” and very reluctant. Mr Liton also says that he personally called the driver on many occasions, estimating that he called the driver around 10 to 12 times. He says he was only able to speak with the driver on the first occasion that he called, and the driver refused to provide any details about the accident. Following this, the driver would not answer the phone whenever Mr Liton called.
Mr Liton says that approximately two to three months after the accident he bumped into the driver at Woolworths Lakemba. The driver asked how Mr Liton was but would not provide any details of the accident and quickly walked away.
Mr Liton says that eventually in November 2024, Mr Alam was able to obtain the driver’s correct name and registration number of the vehicle. This information was purportedly only provided by the driver after Mr Alam said they would contact police.
Once this information was obtained from the driver, Mr Liton says that he and Mr Alam were able to obtain an event number from the police. These details were provided to Gajic Lawyers and an appointment made for him on 14 November 2024.
On 14 November 2024, Mr Liton says he attended Gajic Lawyers and signed the claim form. Mr Liton says this was then submitted to NRMA Insurance by Gajic Lawyers. Mr Liton says that, on 16 November 2024, he received a letter from NRMA Insurance rejecting his claim. Gajic Lawyers advised him that, as his claim was rejected, they could not help him further.
Mr Liton says he was not aware of the requirement to submit a claim within three months from the date of the accident, nor was he aware of the information required for the purposes of lodging a claim form.
Mr Liton says that he did not intentionally delay lodging his claim and that he acted as soon as he was able to after he was informed of the possibility of making a claim.
Mr Liton says he was confused about the process and has relied on his friend Mr Alam and his previous legal advisors, Gajic Lawyers, in relation to making a claim.

Statement from Mahbub Alam

Mahbub Alam has provided a statement dated 25 June 2025.
Mr Alam states that he has known Mr Liton since childhood as they come from the same village in Bangladesh.
Mr Alam came to Australia in 2008.
Mr Alam says Mr Liton telephoned him from the accident scene to say he was involved in the accident and was in pain. Mr Alam told him to take the ambulance and go to hospital. Mr Alam said he visited Mr Liton in hospital on the evening of the accident.
Mr Alam says that Mr Liton stayed in hospital approximately five days, after which period he picked up Mr Liton and drove him home.
In approximately August 2024, Mr Alam said he told Mr Liton he may be able to make a claim. Mr Alam contacted Gajic Lawyers for him. He was advised that they needed details of the accident such as the driver’s name and registration number. Mr Alam says he had the driver’s first name and phone number. He made “many calls” to him. The driver either did not answer or, when he did, he was reluctant to provide his details.
Mr Alam said he eventually obtained the details from the driver after he told the driver he would report him to police.
Mr Alam then contacted Gajic Lawyers and spoke with them over the telephone. They took the details of the accident from him. Mr Alam says Gajic Lawyers then advised they should attend the police and obtain an event number.
Mr Alam said he made inquiries of police and were provided with an event number. This information was then provided to Gajic Lawyers by Mr Alam.
Shortly after providing the police event number, on 14 November 2024, Mr Alam attended the offices of Gajic Lawyers with Mr Liton where a claim form was signed.
Mr Alam said he was aware a claim could be made as he has been in this country “for quite some time” and has had friends who have gone through similar circumstances. Mr Alam says he first spoke with Mr Liton about making a claim about two or three months after his accident, and did not speak with him before because of “his condition”.
Mr Alam says that, as far as he is aware, he and Mr Liton saw Gajic Lawyers on one occasion and “we signed a claim form”. Mr Alam notes that Mr Liton has very basic English language skills, and he relies on Mr Alam and others to translate and help him.

Claim documents

The emails from the insurer to Mr Liton dated 21 November 2024, 4 December 2024 and 12 December 2024 seeking further information regarding his full and satisfactory explanation have been considered. These ask Mr Liton to confirm what he and his solicitors discussed when he first enlisted their assistance in August, and ask Mr Liton to explain the reason for the delay in lodging his claim.
The insurer’s Liability Notice – benefits up to 52 weeks dated 16 November 2024 states that it has not accepted his claim as it was lodged outside of the required timeframe and he has not provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The insurer’s Liability Notice – benefits after 52 weeks dated 4 April 2025 states that it maintains its decision not to accept Mr Liton’s claim for statutory benefits. This is because Mr Liton has still not provided a full and satisfactory explanation for his delay in making his claim. The decision notes that Mr Liton may have a claim for damages due to his injuries based on the information available to it.
Mr Liton’s application for internal review dated 28 April 2025 states:
“The claimant has only recently arrived from Bangladesh on 25 March 2023. He does not understand English well and is at a rudimentary level. At the time of the motor vehicle accident he was a back seat passenger of the vehicle at fault. As a new arrival to Australia, the claimant was not aware of his rights to make a claim, the time limits, nor to whom a claim should be made. A friend advised him to see a lawyer in mid August 2024. Following the MVA, he required immediate medical attention and was taken from the accident scene to Bankstown Hospital where he remained until 15/07/2024. He was not provided any details of the parties or vehicles involved. After consulting Gajic & Co, a police report was requested. The APIB was submitted immediately after the Police report became available on 14/11/2024.”
On 12 May 2025, the insurer determined the application for internal review. The internal review maintained the decision to deny the claim as a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in claim lodgement has not been received.

Certificates of fitness

There are certificates of fitness dated 18 July 2024, 30 July 2024 and 9 August 2024 completed by Dr Islam. These are unsigned.
There is a signed certificate of fitness completed by Dr Islam dated 3 September 2024.
All the certificates of fitness certify that Mr Liton has no capacity for work.
It is noted that the description of the accident in the certificates does not align to the description in the application for personal injury benefits, nor Mr Liton’s statement. However, neither party made any submissions on this point and it does not go directly to an issue in dispute before me.

“Healthengine” print out

A printout dated 25 July 2025 from “Healthengine” provides an overview of Dr Naim Islam from Lakemba. This states Dr Naim Ul Islam is bilingual and fluent in English and Bengali.
While no evidence has been provided to me to explain the source of this document, Mr Liton has not objected to the insurer’s reliance on it for the purposes of establishing that Dr Islam speaks Bengali.

Clinical notes

The “Final Report” of Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital dated 15 July 2024 has been considered. This records that Mr Liton was admitted on 11 July 2024 and was discharged on 15 July 2024. It is recorded that Mr Liton speaks Bengali and an interpreter is required.
There is an ED Discharge Referral of Canterbury Hospital dated 12 November 2024 regarding Mr Liton’s presentation for chest pain. It was recorded that Mr Liton has had intermittent chest pains “since MVA last July 2024”. It was noted Mr Liton speaks Bengali and the conversation was translated by his roommate.
Other medical documentation, such as the clinical notes of Dr Islam, the Initial Needs Assessment Report dated 8 January 2025 and the radiological imaging reports have been considered and evaluated.

DETERMINATION

It is accepted that Mr Liton did not comply with s 6.13(1) of the MAI Act. The accident occurred on 11 July 2024. Mr Liton’s application for statutory benefits was not made until 14 November 2024 and was provided to the insurer under cover letter dated 18 November 2024. This is outside the required three-month time limit.
The claim has been made within three years after the date of the accident.
Accordingly, whether Mr Liton’s claim for statutory benefits may be made depends on whether he has a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making his claim.
The meaning of “full and satisfactory” for the purposes of Part 6 of the MAI Act, being the part in which s 6.13 appears, is provided by s 6.2 of the MAI Act.
I note the insurer’s submissions refer to the police report which identifies that there was only one occupant in the relevant vehicle. However, the insurer does not submit that Mr Liton was not involved in the accident and I note this is not in issue before me.

Is Mr Liton’s explanation full and satisfactory?

There is considerable case law regarding the meaning of the phrase “full and satisfactory”.
Karambelas v Zaknic (No. 2) [2014] NSWCA 433 discussed the meaning of s 66(2) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the MAC Act) which is the predecessor to s 6.2 of the MAI Act. Justice Meagher (with whom Basten and Simpson JJA agreed) stated:
“[16] An explanation is ‘full and satisfactory’ within s 66(2) if it satisfies two requirements. First, it must include a full account of the conduct, including the actions, knowledge and belief of the claimant, from the date of the accident until ‘the date of providing the explanation’. In the case of a late claim under s 73(1) that is the date on which the explanation is first provided. Secondly, the explanation must be such that a reasonable person in the position of the claimant ‘would have been justified in experiencing the same delay’.”
Further, it is noted that “[t]he provision does not call for perfection, or ... for prolix or burdensome recounting of every moment that has elapsed”.[2]
[2] Walker v Howard (2009) 78 NSWLR 161; [2009] NSWCA 408 (Walker) at [104].
The “conduct” is an account of the acts and omissions of Mr Liton and all relevant persons whose conduct is relevant to the explanation for the delay, however this does not broaden the meaning of “claimant” in the first sentence of s 66(2).[3]
[3] Walker at [53]-[55].
For completeness, I note that Mr Liton’s statement refers to NRMA Insurance rather than Allianz Insurance Australia Limited, being the relevant insurer for the purposes of his claim. I have proceeded on the basis that this is a typographical error, and note that a similar approach has been adopted by the insurer.

Is Mr Liton’s explanation full?

As to whether Mr Liton’s explanation is “full”, the word “takes its meaning from the context. It refers to the conduct bearing upon the delay, and the state of mind of the claimant”.[4]
[4] Russo v Aiello [2003] HCA 53 per Gleeson CJ.
In Rahman v Al-Maharmeh (2021) 95 MVR 394; [2021] NSWCA 31 (Rahman), Brereton JA noted, in respect of the predecessor to s 6.2 of the MAI Act:
“[39] While the ‘full account of the conduct’ referred to in the first sentence of s 66(2) MAC Act is not confined to that of the claimant personally but extends to the conduct of those who have acted or purported to act on behalf of the claimant, so far as it is relevant to the delay, this does not mean that the explanation is required to include ‘the actions, knowledge and belief’ of the solicitors, as distinct from the claimant: it is the claimant who must provide the explanation for the claimant’s delay in commencing proceedings.”
Accordingly, the explanation for the delay is to be provided by Mr Liton.
The claim was made on 14 November 2024. Pursuant to s 6.2 of the MAI Act, Mr Liton’s explanation must account for the period 11 July 2024 to 14 November 2024.
While not determinative of whether Mr Liton’s explanation is full, I note that the date on which Mr Liton was informed of his entitlement to make a CTP claim, and his awareness of the time limits, is relevant to his knowledge and belief, and his consequent state of mind and actions.

i. When was Mr Liton made aware of his entitlement to make a claim?

Mr Liton says he was unaware of his entitlement to make a CTP claim until around August 2024 when he was informed about his entitlements from his friend, Mr Alam. He says he then participated in a call with solicitors, arranged by Mr Alam.
I note that the insurer refutes this and says Mr Liton would have been informed of his entitlements from Dr Islam.
Dr Islam’s consultation notes are before me, which include the presentation by Mr Liton on 18 July 2024 in the week following the accident. This entry references the accident and Mr Liton’s admission to Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital. I note that the insurer submits that Dr Islam speaks Bengali and would have conveyed to Mr Liton that he had a right to lodge a CTP claim at this appointment or shortly after.
I note there are unsigned certificates of fitness dated 18 July 2024, 30 July 2024 and 9 August 2024 completed by Dr Islam. There is then a signed certificate of fitness completed by Dr Islam dated 3 September 2024. The dates of the certificates align with the dates of Mr Liton’s attendances on Dr Islam. There are also references in the relevant clinical notes to “Letter created – re NSW – WorkCover to . ; Letter Printed – re. NSW – WorkCover to .”. These documents indicate that from 18 July 2024 Dr Islam was aware that Mr Liton may make a claim for statutory benefits in relation to the accident.
The “clinical information” notes “MVA in July 2024 – patient advised on 08/10/24 Claim denied”.
On balance, based on the above, I accept the insurer’s submission that Dr Islam likely informed Mr Liton of his entitlement to make a claim for statutory benefits at his first attendance on 18 July 2024.
While I have accepted that Mr Liton was likely informed of his entitlements to make a CTP claim at the 18 July 2024 appointment or shortly after, I note Mr Liton’s evidence that he did not understand his entitlements until his discussion with Mr Alam in August 2024. This statement is not inconsistent with the contemporaneous records. The insurer requested for this matter to be dealt with on the papers and did not wish to cross-examine Mr Liton on this point. No submissions were made as to the credibility or otherwise of Mr Liton’s evidence. Accordingly, I accept Mr Liton’s evidence and find that, despite likely being informed of his entitlements by Dr Islam in or around 18 July 2024, Mr Liton did not understand what this meant until after his discussion with Mr Alam in August 2024.
For completeness, I accept the insurer’s submission that there are inconsistencies in the statement provided by Mr Alam in respect of when he advised Mr Liton of his potential eligibility to make a CTP claim. Considering the entirety of the evidence before me, I find that, on balance, Mr Alam informed Mr Liton of his eligibility to make a claim in or around August 2024. I find that the reference to “two or three months” after the accident is likely an error in estimation, and I place no weight on that paragraph of Mr Alam’s statement.

When was Mr Liton informed of the time limits for making a claim?

While I have found, on balance, that Dr Islam likely informed Mr Liton of his entitlement to make a claim for statutory benefits on 18 July 2024, there is no evidence to suggest that Dr Islam advised Mr Liton of the three-month time limit.
Dr Islam is a general practitioner. It cannot be assumed that Dr Islam is aware of the specifics of the MAI Act, such as the time limit in which a claimant must lodge a claim. The insurer has provided no evidence to suggest Dr Islam is aware of the time limits in the MAI Act. Further, even if known by him, the insurer has provided no evidence that Mr Liton was informed of these time limits by Dr Islam.
I therefore reject the insurer’s submission that Mr Liton’s knowledge of the three-month limit arose one week after the accident.
Mr Liton has provided evidence that he first attended an appointment with solicitors in relation to the accident in August 2024. While there is no evidence as to the precise date of this appointment, that it occurred in August 2024 is accepted by the parties.
I do not have a statement or any evidence from Gajic Lawyers. Frisina Lawyers informed me at the preliminary conference that the file from Gajic Lawyers only contained Mr Liton’s claim form and no file notes or other documents.
Both Mr Liton’s and Mr Alam’s statements are very high level in terms of the advice provided at this meeting. Based on these statements, I accept that Gajic Lawyers informed Mr Liton that he first needed to obtain the name of the driver and the vehicle registration details before his claim could be made. Based on the statements of Mr Liton and Mr Alam, it appears that Gajic Lawyers only advised that a police event number was required during a subsequent phone conversation with Mr Alam once the driver’s details had been obtained.
It is not clear what advice was provided to Mr Liton, if any, as to the relevant time limits for lodging a claim at the August 2024 appointment.
There is also no evidence before me as to when Mr Liton became aware of the three-month time limitation. Mr Liton’s statement simply says he was not aware of the time limitations in which to lodge a claim.
On balance, and noting the advice provided by Gajic Lawyers as to the pre-requisites for lodging a claim and as Mr Liton’s claim form prepared by Gajic Lawyers sets out an explanation for his delay, I find that Gajic Lawyers are likely to have informed Mr Liton of the three-month time limitation at his first appointment in August 2024. While there is no evidence as to whether there was a translator present at this meeting, based on the statements of Mr Alam and Mr Liton, on balance I find that Mr Alam is likely to have acted as a translator for Mr Liton during this appointment.
Despite this, Mr Liton’s evidence is that he was not aware of the time limits under the MAI Act in which to lodge a claim. Again, I note that Mr Liton was not challenged on this evidence by the insurer. Accordingly, while it is likely Gajic Lawyers advised Mr Liton of the time limitations, I find that the consequences of the time limitations were likely not understood by Mr Liton.
Noting these findings as to Mr Liton’s knowledge and belief, I turn now to examine his conduct.
Mr Liton was conveyed to hospital after the accident and was not discharged until 15 July 2024. There is evidence of attendances on Dr Islam in two dates in July and on 9 August 2024. Accordingly, I find that Mr Liton was dealing with his injuries in the period 11 July 2024 to at least 9 August 2024.

The date on which Mr Liton first attended upon Gajic Lawyers is unclear, however I accept the evidence of Mr Liton and Mr Alam that the appointment occurred in or around August 2024.
As noted above, I have accepted that Gajic Lawyers informed Mr Liton that he had to obtain the full name of the driver and the vehicle registration details before his claim could be made. Following the appointment with Gajic Lawyers in August 2024, I find that Mr Liton personally and through the assistance provided by Mr Alam sought to obtain the information required to pursue his claim through numerous attempts to contact the driver.
I acknowledge more could have been done by Mr Liton to obtain the required information; however I accept that his actions are likely to have been influenced by the legal advice he is said to have received, being that he first needed to obtain information from the driver before he could progress his claim.
Based on the evidence of both Mr Liton and Mr Alam, the driver was not forthcoming and it took numerous contact attempts between August to October or November 2024 to obtain this information. In this regard, I note there are slight inconsistencies in the statements of Mr Liton and his claim form as to when this information was provided.
Once the requisite information was obtained in or around late October or November 2024, I find Mr Liton, through Mr Alam, promptly contacted police to obtain the police event number and report.
Once the police report was obtained in November 2024, Mr Liton promptly made his claim.
Mr Liton also presented to Canterbury Hospital on 12 November 2024 for chest pain which he reported to have experienced since the accident. It is therefore apparent that Mr Liton was dealing with the injuries said to have been caused by the accident during the relevant period.
I find that Mr Liton’s explanation is full for the requisite period because it accounts for his actions, knowledge and beliefs in sufficient detail to explain how and why the delay occurred.
While I accept that Mr Liton’s evidence is relatively high level, it provides me with sufficient basis to understand what he was doing throughout the entire period of delay. As noted in Walker, the account does not need to be prolix, nor account for every moment that has elapsed.[5]
[5] See Walker at [104].

Is Mr Liton’s explanation satisfactory?

Section 6.2 of the MAI Act requires that Mr Liton’s explanation be both full and satisfactory. The legislation states that an explanation is not a satisfactory explanation unless a reasonable person in the position of Mr Liton would have failed to comply with the duty. This is an objective test and looks to whether a reasonable person in Mr Liton’s position would have been justified in experiencing the delay.[6]
[6] Walker at [64], [108], [134].
Mr Liton came to Australia on 26 May 2023. This is approximately 14 months before the accident. He says that his English language skills are “not good” and that he mainly speaks Bengali. He has not made a CTP claim in the past and had limited to no knowledge of the NSW CTP scheme.
I have found that Mr Liton did not understand his entitlements to make a CTP claim until around August 2024. He promptly sought legal advice once he understood his potential entitlements. He was advised by those lawyers that he needed certain information from the driver before he could lodge a claim.
The evidence before me is that the driver withheld the provision of the required information until October or November 2024 and that it was only provided when the driver was informed that the police would otherwise be contacted. Based on the evidence before me, this information was provided after numerous phone calls by both Mr Liton and Mr Alam.
Once the relevant information was obtained, a police report was obtained and Mr Liton lodged his claim relatively promptly in November 2024.
Mr Liton was not working during this period on the advice of his doctor, as set out in the medical evidence before me, and was not back at work at the time he lodged his claim. I accept the insurer’s submission that Mr Liton could have contacted his place of employment to seek to obtain the details of the driver. However, I note that the driver was not just a colleague but a partner of the business and therefore Mr Liton’s employer. I find that a reasonable person in the position of Mr Liton may have been hesitant to contact his place of employment in the circumstances for fear of negatively impacting his future employment prospects.
I also note the insurer’s submission in respect of contacting NSW Police to obtain a copy of the report. Based on the evidence before me, it appears Mr Lition was advised by Gajic Lawyers that he was first required to obtain the driver and vehicle registration details before obtaining a police report. There is no reason for Mr Liton to have doubted this advice. I find that a reasonable person in Mr Liton’s position would have followed the advice provided by his lawyers and awaited receipt of the driver’s information before contacting police.
The insurer submits that Mr Liton had access to people and resources to assist him with his application but does not specify those people and resources. It is accepted that Mr Liton does not speak English and was largely reliant on his friends to help him obtain the required information to progress his claim. Mr Liton has provided evidence he relied on Mr Alam and his legal representatives in this regard. There is nothing to suggest that a reasonable person in Mr Liton’s position would have done otherwise in a manner that mitigated any delay.
Noting the above, I find that Mr Liton’s explanation is satisfactory, in that a reasonable person in the position of Mr Liton would have been justified in experiencing the same delay.

FINDINGS

In accordance with s 6.13(3) of the MAI Act, Mr Lition has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making a claim for statutory benefits, and the claim has been made within three years after the date of the motor accident.

COSTS

At the preliminary conference on 11 August 2025, I directed the parties to confer with the intention of seeking to agree costs.
The parties have agreed costs in the amount of $2,031 plus GST, being in accordance with Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Motor Accident Injury Regulation 2017, and disbursements in the amount of $163.94 inclusive of GST. I allow costs accordingly.

[2025] NSWPIC 547

15 October 2025