Milla v Transport Accident Commission - [2022] NSWPIC 127

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Milla v Transport Accident Commission [2022] NSWPIC 127
CLAIMANT:	Elizabeth Milla
INSURER:	Transport Accident Commission
MEMBER:	Maurice Castagnet
DATE OF DECISION:	22 March 2022
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Claims assessment; application to compensate relatives; whether the proceedings involve federal jurisdiction; whether the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) has jurisdiction to determine the proceedings where the claimant is a resident of the Australian Capital Territory and the insurer is an interstate statutory insurer (Victoria); whether the Commission has power to dismiss the proceedings if a party has not used their “best endeavours” to settle a claim before referring it for assessment; section 7.32(3) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 considered; Held – the matter has jurisdiction to determine the proceedings.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Pursuant to Clause 10(d) of Procedural Direction MA1, the proceedings are referred to the stood over list. 2. Each party has liberty to restore the proceedings before 22 September 2022.

PROCEDURAL DECISION

Claim for damages – Application to compensate relatives

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

On 25 July 2021, the claimant made an application for compensation to the insurer, the Transport Accident Commission, seeking damages arising from the death of her husband in a motor accident on Olympic Highway, the Rocks, NSW on 14 June 2021.
On 1 December 2021, the claimant made an application to the Personal Injury Commission (“the Commission”) seeking referral of her claim for damages for assessment.
The claimant says that she is, and was at the time of making the application, a resident of the Australian Capital Territory. The insurer is a statutory corporation established by the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Victoria).
The claimant submits that this is a matter between a State and a resident of another State involving the exercise of federal jurisdiction, and that the Commission does not have jurisdiction.
The claimant therefore seeks to have her application dismissed so that she may proceed to seek leave from the District Court of NSW pursuant to section 26 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (“the PIC Act”), to make her application to the Court instead of the Commission.
The insurer submits that the application should be dismissed but on different grounds. The insurer contends the claimant has not used her best endeavours to resolve the claim before it was referred to the Commission for assessment in contravention of section 7.32(3) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (“the MAI Act”).

THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Division 3.2 of the PIC Act regulates the determination of “federal proceedings”.
Section 25 of the PIC Act provides that federal jurisdiction means jurisdiction of a kind referred to in section 75 or 76 of the Australian Constitution.
Section 75 (iv) of the Australian Constitution confers original jurisdiction on the High Court of Australia in matters between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State.
Section 77 provides that with respect to any of the matters mentioned in section 75 the Federal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Milla v Transport Accident Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWPIC 127
Decision Date: 22 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Milla v Transport Accident Commission involves a dispute over claims assessment following a motor accident. The claimant, Milla, sought compensation from the respondent, the Transport Accident Commission, a statutory insurer from Victoria. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the court had the jurisdiction to determine the proceedings given the claimant's residency in the Australian Capital Territory and the respondent being an interstate statutory insurer. Another critical issue was whether the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) had the power to dismiss the proceedings if a party had not used their "best endeavours" to settle a claim before referring it for assessment. The court examined section 7.32(3) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 in this regard.

The court found that the matter had jurisdiction to determine the proceedings. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and concluded that the Commission had the authority to assess the claim and decide on the compensation. The court also determined that the Commission had the power to dismiss proceedings if a party failed to use their best endeavours to settle a claim before referring it for assessment, as per section 7.32(3). The court emphasised the importance of parties making a genuine effort to settle claims before referring them to the Commission for assessment.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over the proceedings. The court ordered that the proceedings should continue before the Commission for the assessment of the claim. The claimant was directed to use their best endeavours to settle the claim with the respondent before the assessment. This decision highlights the importance of parties making a genuine effort to settle claims before referring them to the Commission for assessment.

Orders