Manookian v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Manookian v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 276
CLAIMANT:	Shahin Manookian
INSURER:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
MEMBER:	Susan McTegg
DATE OF DECISION:	17 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident; miscellaneous claims assessment; whether claimant has provided full and satisfactory explanation for delay in lodging claim; application for personal injury benefits dated 3 December 2024 received by insurer on 7 January 2025; claimant provided explanation for delay; insurer accepted explanation was full but did not concede it was satisfactory; Held – claimant had no knowledge of time frames applicable to claims; claimant confused about CTP process and not coping well after discharge from hospital; claimant relied upon lawyer to progress claim; Dandah v Witte cited; claimant has provided full and satisfactory explanation for delay in lodging the claim.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging his claim.

DETERMINATION

INTRODUCTION

This is a miscellaneous claims assessment under Schedule 2 cl 3(h) of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) as to whether Shahin Manookian (the claimant) has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging his claim.
The claimant sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident on 12 April 2024 (the accident).
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (the insurer) is the relevant insurer with liability to pay statutory benefits to Mr Manookian under the MAI Act.
Section 6.13 of the MAI Act provides:
“(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%.”
Section 6.2 of the MAI provides:
“(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.”
The Application for personal injury benefits dated 3 December 2024 was received by the insurer on 7 January 2025.
The claimant provided a statement dated 24 January 2025 purporting to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the claim form.
The insurer conceded the explanation was a full account of the actions, knowledge and belief of the claimant from the date of the accident until the date of the explanation. However, the insurer disputed that the explanation is satisfactory on the basis that a reasonable person would not have failed to comply with the duty or would not have been justified in experiencing the same delay.

THE EVIDENCE

On 23 April 2025 the claimant uploaded a bundle of documents paginated from pages 1 to 493 including a statement from the claimant dated 24 January 2025, a statement from his wife Norma Cruickshanks dated 24 March 2025 and undated submissions.
On 8 May 2025 the insurer uploaded a bundle of documents paginated from pages 1 to 7 incorporating the insurer’s submissions dated 8 May 2025.
Following a teleconference the claimant uploaded further documents on 3 June 2025 including a supplementary statement dated 3 June 2025 and a short report of Dr Mohammad Asar dated 23 May 2025.

Application for personal injury benefits

The accident occurred on 12 April 2024. In the Application for personal injury benefits dated 3 December 2024 the claimant described the accident as follows:
“On the 12 April 2024, I was riding my motorcycle along Farnham Road, Quakers Hill. Whilst riding along this road, the vehicle at fault was driving in the opposite direction when the vehicle suddenly turned right into a driveway across my path of travel and stopped causing me to collide with the passenger side of the vehicle at fault”.
The claimant described his injuries as “degloving injury of the right thigh, nose, psychological, both legs”.
In response to the question “Have you ever made a CTP claim for injury?” the claimant replied yes and nominated the date of injury as 2016.

The claimant’s evidence

The claimant has provided statements dated 24 January 2025 and 3 June 2025.
The claimant stated he ceased school after year 10 and initially worked in restaurants including pizza shops and Italian restaurants. He then commenced work as a meat carter which required him to transport meats from one place to another. He worked with Lachlan Valley for four to five years and then with Sydney Meat Transport for another 16 years on and off. He described an absence from work when he cared for his father before he died in 2003.
The claimant stated he had an earlier accident in 2008 when he was rear-ended on the freeway and injured his lower back. He retained lawyers, made a claim and received some compensation. However, he stated he did not recall being told about time limits for making a claim and stated he was not aware of any time limits at the time of the accident.
The claimant stated following the injury to his lower back in 2008, he was no longer able to work as a meat carter. He had further time off work associated with the death of his mother in 2010 and from on or around late 2013 he worked as a truck driver with Hilbon Transport for about two years.
He then worked with Tarista Transport until he lost his truck driving licence in or around September 2017 following a seizure.
The claimant sought to clarify an error he made in the Application for personal injury benefits where he nominated 2016 as the year of an earlier compulsory third party (CTP) claim. He stated he thought the question related to claims for compensation generally, having sustained an injury to his thumb whilst working with Tarista Transport in 2016. The claimant stated he about one week off work and understood he received workers compensation payments for that absence.
After ceasing work with Tarista Transport the claimant had difficulty in obtaining employment given he had a history of seizures. In 2020 he began work as a groundsman helping his stepson with his tree removal business. He worked as a groundsman on and off until the accident in 2024.
As a result of the accident on 12 April 2024 the claimant suffered a severe degloving injury to the right thigh which required multiple surgeries. He was an inpatient at Westmead Hospital until 7 May 2024. On 14 April 2024 he underwent a debridement and skin graft to his nose and right thigh. On 19 April 2024, 22 April 2024 and again on 24 April 2024 he underwent debridement of his right thigh.
The claimant stated following his discharge from hospital his mental health deteriorated, he was unable to sleep, and he experienced flashbacks of the accident.
The claimant stated he was on heavy painkillers from 12 April 2024 to mid-June 2025 which made him drowsy and unable to focus properly. He stated his wife started talking to him about whether he had a right to compensation in about mid-May, but he was still on heavy painkillers and did not feel up to speaking to a solicitor.
The claimant was readmitted to Westmead Hospital on 31 May 2025 until 1 June 2025 when he underwent further surgery to his nose and right thigh.
The claimant stated around that time he spoke to a solicitor suggested by his son, but that solicitor specialised in criminal law.
On 7 June 2024 the claimant spoke to Tiffany Truong, a solicitor with Brydens Lawyers (Brydens). At that time the claimant thought the date of accident was 4 April 2024. He said he was told he was out of time to commence his claim, and he would need to explain why there had been a delay.
He spoke to Tiffany Truong about the terms of Bryden’s retainer on 17 June 2024. He was asked to provide details of his treatment, but he did not have any of those details to hand. The claimant stated at this time he was still struggling and was finding it difficult to do anything on his own.
The claimant formally retained Brydens to act on his behalf on 25 June 2024 and signed authorities. He described a telephone call with Ms Troung on 3 July 2024 when she went through with him in some detail what had happened since the accident so she could understand the reason for delay in bringing the claim. The claimant stated this was the first time he was told that a claim should have been lodged within 28 days of the accident to secure a full entitlement to benefits. He stated he did not hear anything more from Brydens for a while and assumed they were drafting an explanation for the delay in lodging the claim and otherwise progressing the claim.
The claimant stated when he had not heard anything further, he telephoned Brydens on 10 September 2024. He spoke to a clerk on 13 September 2024 and was informed the Westmead Hospital notes recorded the date of accident as 12 April 2024. The claimant stated he was also asked further questions as to what had occurred since the accident. He believed the claim was being progressed.
On 21 November 2024 the claimant received a letter informing him his file had been transferred to another lawyer at Brydens, Mr David Le.
The claimant spoke to Mr Le on the telephone on 3 December 2024 when he was informed, he needed his doctor to complete a Certificate of Capacity to accompany his claim form.
Whilst the clinical notes of Westmead Hospital suggest he was visited by a social worker on 18 April 2024 who told him of the need for a Certificate of Capacity and that one had been completed by the medical team the claimant states he does not remember the substance of that conversation at all. He states he was heavily medicated at that time and recalls being frustrated because he was just given a booklet with a number to call for psychological help.
On 3 December 2024 the claimant signed the Application for personal injury benefits which was lodged on the Nominal Insurer by Mr Le the same day and received by the insurer on 7 January 2025.
The claimant stated he was not able to see his general practitioner Dr Asar until 8 January 2025 when he received the signed Certificate of Capacity which was then furnished to the insurer.
The claimant stated he continues to suffer from insomnia, flashbacks, panic, chest pains and anxiety. He finds receiving correspondence about his accident stressful and stated that is why he did not follow up with his lawyers more frequently. The claimant had sought psychological treatment.
The claimant stated he had no understanding of the motor accident compensation regime in New South Wales, and he relied and continued to rely upon his lawyers to navigate the system.

Statement of Norma Cruickshanks

Ms Cruickshanks is the claimant’s wife. She provided a statement dated 24 March 2025.
She stated following the accident she had to take approximately three months off work to care for the claimant. She observed during that time the claimant was not performing properly and was, in her words, “in LaLa Land”. She noted he was not alert; he did not seem able to remember conversations and he slurred his words as if he was drunk. Ms Cruickshank thought this was the effect of the painkillers he was taking.
Ms Cruickshanks reported the accident traumatised the claimant, he described flashbacks of the accident and the difficulty he experienced sleeping due to nightmares. She stated his injury was so significant that the Hospital arranged for nurses to come to their home every second day for a period of six to eight weeks to clean and dress his wound.
Ms Cruickshank stated she recalled a social worker in the hospital advising the claimant that he potentially had a claim because he was not at fault. She stated at no time did the social worker advise the claimant he had 28 days to lodge the claim.
Ms Cruickshanks stated in May 2024 she came across a Brydens stall at a Blacktown Legal Centre event and encouraged the claimant to call Brydens and arrange an appointment.
She stated she understood the claimant retained Brydens to act for him and that Tiffany was progressing his matter. She was informed by the claimant that he left a couple of messages with Brydens with no response until November/December 2024 when the file was transferred to David Le.

Clinical notes of Westmead Hospital

Clinical notes of Westmead Hospital detail the claimant’s admission between 12 April 2024 and 7 May 2024.
The clinical notes demonstrate that the claimant was prescribed Morphine on 12 April 2024, Fentanyl on 12 April 2024, and 19 April 2024 and more generally Endone during the period of his hospitalisation.
On 18 April 2024 social worker Siobhan Malkoun recorded:
“Shahin and his wife appear to have a limited understanding of upcoming operation and what to expect in the short and long-term with his recovery. …
Both reported having minimal understanding of medical terminology and feel that they haven’t had a space to ask questions. …
Shahin reported that his concern is current difficulty staying asleep due to flashbacks … reported waking frequently at night (every 1.5-2 hrs) shaking …
SW provided Responding to Trauma booklet and went through contents together.
Discussed option of accessing psychological support via CTP if required down the track in the community. …
CTP
Shahin’s son has been liaising with Shahin’s insurer, however they have not submitted the CTP application yet.
Both expressed some confusion with this process. SW went through hardcopy forms already at Shahin’s bedside and encouraged them to complete and submit ASAP. Certificate of Capacity already completed by medical team
Employment/Finances
Shahin receives the Job Seeker Payment. He works casually for their son, however, goes through long periods without working due to slow business. Due to minimal recent work activity and no pay slips, discussed that it is unlikely for Shahin to be able to claim income cover the CTP. ...”

Clinical notes of Emerald Medical Centre, Quakers Hill

The claimant was prescribed the following pain killers according to the clinical notes:
·        on 30 April 2024 he was prescribed Targin 10mg; 5mg modified release tablets – one twice a day and Endone 5mg, tablet one to two as pain break-through if needed.
·        On 10 May 2924 he was prescribed Endone 5mg tablet one to two as pain break-through if needed.
·        On 7 June 2024 he was prescribed Endone 5mg tablet one to two as pain break-through if needed.
Dr Mohammad Asar provided a short report dated 23 May 2025 stating:
“Mr S Manookian is under our care for his medical conditions, he has had a severe injury of Motor Bike accident last year for which he spent 12 days in Westmead Hospital, when he discharged back to home and visited me he was taking strong Narcotic analgesic and looked confused under the influence of analgesic, he has had a large degloving Rt thigh wound and needed strong analgesic.”

Mind Connections

On 27 November 2024 the claimant was referred to Mind Connections. The referral states:
“Mr S Manookian has had a MVA on 12/04/2024 and was admitted in Westmead Hospital for 12 days, now affecting his Mental health with anxiety and sleep disorder, is referred for further counselling sessions”.
? PTSD.”
On 17 December 2024 Paul Silvani, psychologist reported inter alia:
“Described changes post-accident: grumpier, easily upset by small annoyances/nuisances/etc. …
Hospital psychologist spoke to him for 30 min, then gave him a pamphlet for someone else to call. Shahin disheartened by mental health support experience.”

IS THE EXPLANATION SATISFACTORY

The insurer relies on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dijakovic v Perez[1] where it is submitted it was established that the ‘satisfactory’ element of s 66(2) of the Motor Accident Compensation Act, 1999 (MAC Act), the comparative provision to s 6.2 of the MAI Act, was by reference to an objective standard and given the claimant’s position.
[1] Dijakovic v Ferez [2015] NSWCA 174.
The claimant relies upon the decision in Dandah v Witte which provides that an explanation for delay in respect of the identically worded sections of the MAC Act is “satisfactory” if at least one hypothetical person within a spectrum of reasonable persons would have experienced the same delay.[2]
[2] Dandah v Witte [2023] NSWCA 304.
The insurer submits the claimant’s explanation has not satisfactorily or adequately explained the almost eight-month delay in completing the Application for personal injury benefits following the accident.
The insurer submits the clinical records of Emerald Medical Centre contain reference to multiple consultations following the accident with no reported adverse side effects including drowsiness or impact on ability to focus, following the prescription of Endone and Targin. The insurer submits there are no documented reports of changes to the claimant’s cognition through the use of prescribed medication from his claimant’s general practitioner. However, the claimant subsequently furnished the report of Dr Asar who stated following his discharge from hospital the claimant looked confused under the influence of narcotic analgesic.
The claimant submits he cannot be expected, as a lay person, to understand what forms had or had not been submitted by his solicitor and what forms he ought to have submitted if same were not provided or explained to him. A reasonable person, within a spectrum of such persons, upon speaking with their solicitor and providing them everything the solicitor had asked for, would be entitled to rely upon their solicitor to diligently progress their claim.
The insurer submits in addition to the claimant’s experience in two previous CTP claims he had been informed, on multiple occasions, by his legal representatives of the required timeframes and specifically that he had already exceeded those timeframes and would have to provide an explanation. The claimant’s supplementary statement confirmed he had only one earlier CTP claim, that is arising out of injury in 2008. The 2016 injury to the thumb occurred in the workplace and was the subject of a workers compensation claim.
The claimant submits he relied upon his lawyers at the time of the 2008 claim. Moreover, it is submitted a reasonable layperson in the position of the claimant cannot be held to have some knowledge of the time-limits imposed by the MAI Act because of a claim made under a different legislative framework more than a decade earlier.
In relation to the 2008 claim whilst the claimant concedes he made a claim and received compensation his evidence is that he retained lawyers who acted on his behalf. He states he was not aware of any time limits at the time of that accident. This is not surprising where the 2008 accident occurred 16 years earlier.
Notwithstanding his involvement in the earlier claim, it is apparent from the available records that the claimant is not a sophisticated litigant. He left school after year 10, he has no further qualifications and his employment as a meat carter, truck driver and more recently as a groundsman all involve manual labour, albeit skilled, involving no higher-level intellectual engagement.

The insurer submits the claimant was informed on multiple occasions by his legal representatives of the relevant timeframes. Even if the claimant was advised of the relevant time frames the evidence of both the claimant and his wife suggests he did not understand his obligations under the legislation and relied upon his lawyers to take the appropriate steps to progress his claim.
During the initial period of hospitalisation following the accident between 12 April 2024 and 7 May 2024 the claimant underwent three surgical proceedings. He was readmitted to Westmead Hospital on 31 May 2025 when he underwent further surgery to his nose and right thigh.
I am satisfied on the available evidence that during his initial admission to Westmead Hospital the claimant had only a limited understanding of his condition, the proposed surgery, his likely recovery and the CTP process. Whilst he was encouraged to lodge his CTP claim there is no evidence he was informed of the time limits applicable to such a claim. Indeed, the suggestion by the social worker that he was unlikely to receive compensation for loss of income and might have the option to access psychological support via CTP down the track did not suggest there was any urgency in lodging the CTP claim. The clinical notes of the social worker corroborate the evidence of the claimant and his wife. Ms Malkoun’s notes verify that both the claimant and his wife were teary and confused about the CTP process, that the claimant had difficulty sleeping due to flashbacks of the accident and tended to ruminate on the accident.
I am also satisfied having regard to the evidence of the claimant and his wife that he was not coping well following his discharge from hospital, noting it was necessary for his leg to be dressed every second day for six to eight weeks, he was not sleeping well, and he was taking Endone, a known opioid medication.
The evidence of the claimant that he did not understand or was confused as to what was required of him having regard to his deteriorating mental health and his use of pain-killers is corroborated by the evidence of Ms Cruickshanks who confirmed the claimant was traumatised by the accident, had difficulty sleeping due to nightmares and was as she stated “in LaLa Land”.
The claimant’s confused state of mind is also corroborated by the confusion surrounding the date of accident. Apparently, he initially informed Ms Troung that the accident occurred on 4 April 2024, and it was not until the clinical notes of Westmead Hospital were obtained by Brydens that he became aware that the accident, in fact, occurred on 12 April 2024.
The claimant first consulted Brydens on 7 June 2024, within three months of the date of accident and thereafter he had engagement with someone from Brydens on 17 June 2024, on 25 June 2024, on 3 July 2024, on 13 September 2024, on 21 November 2024 and on 3 December 2024.
Further, whilst Tiffany Troung advised the claimant his claim was out of time there is no evidence she informed him what steps he personally ought to take to lodge his claim. Not surprisingly the claimant thought Brydens was progressing the claim and drafting an explanation for delay. Apparently, it was not until 3 December 2024 that the claimant was given to understand the claim form had not been lodged and that he was advised he would need to see his general practitioner to obtain a signed Certificate of Capacity.
In Dijakovic at [100] Gleeson JA stated:
“This ‘causal’ approach to whether the explanation is satisfactory should be rejected. The question is whether a reasonable person in the position of Mr Dijakovic would have been justified in experiencing the delay which occurred. Where that delay involves, in part, the conduct of the claimant’s solicitor, such delay is ordinarily outside of the control of the claimant, unless the claimant has contributed to the delay, such as by not giving instructions or attending medical appointments as requested.”[3]
[3] Dijakovic v Ferez [2015] NSWCA 174 at [100].
The evidence of the claimant is that he had no understanding of the motor accident compensation regime in New South Wales and relied upon his lawyers to take all steps to progress his claim. I am satisfied that the claimant understood, mistakenly as it turns out that his solicitor was progressing his claim. As in Dijakovic the delay, in part, was caused by the conduct of the claimant’s solicitor and there is no suggestion the claimant has contributed to the delay.
Notably, Mason P in Buller v Black [4] referring to a comparable provision in the Motor Accidents Act 1988 said at [61]:
“Section 43A precedes on the supposition that a reasonable person can be in default yet have a satisfactory explanation for that default. The standard is reasonableness; not perfection, and the reasonableness of a person placed in the actual position of the particular claimant. The ultimate questions are whether a reasonable person in that position would have failed to have complied with the duty (to file the claim within six months) or would have been justified in experiencing the same delay”.
[4] Buller v Black [2003] NSWCA 45
Applying an objective standard to the claimant’s position and where the standard is reasonableness, not perfection I find the explanation provided by the claimant to be satisfactory where at least one hypothetical person within a spectrum of reasonable persons would have experienced the same delay.

CONCLUSION

The claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging his claim.
OutcomeDocumentSignature

[2025] NSWPIC 276

17 June 2025