Ozcan v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
[2023] NSWPICMR 54
•18 October 2023
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MERIT REVIEWER | |
| CITATION: | Ozcan v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2023] NSWPICMR 54 |
| CLAIMANT: | Tolgahan Ozcan |
| INSURER: | QBE |
| MERIT REVIEWER: | Katherine Ruschen |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 18 October 2023 |
| CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; dispute about weekly payment of statutory benefits under division 3.3; dispute about pre-accident weekly earnings; when first began to earn continuously; schedule 1, clause 4(2)(a); meaning of earning continuously clause 4(4); whether earnings likely to be received on same or similar basis for at least 6 months; section 6.24; evidence in support of contention; validity of claim; Held – remitted to insurer for redetermination. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE Issued under s 7.13(4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act2017 DETERMINATION 1. The determination is as follows: (a) the claimant’s gross earnings from Uber in the 12 month pre-accident period are $6,497.34; (b) the claimant is to provide the insurer with information and documents about any other earnings received in the 12 month period before the accident within a reasonable period of time; (c) the matter is remitted to the insurer for redetermination of the claimant’s pre-accident weekly earnings (PAWE) under cl 4(1) once the claimant has been provided with a reasonable opportunity to provide further information and documents about other earnings received in the period 19 April 2022 to 18 April 2023, and (d) there is no jurisdiction to determine costs on the basis of exceptional circumstances under s 8.10 of the MAI Act. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
There is a dispute between Tolgahan Ozcan (the claimant) and the insurer about the amount of weekly payments of statutory benefits payable under Division 3.3 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act).
The claimant was involved in a motor accident on 19 April 2023.
The claimant made an application for personal injury benefits under the MAI Act.
On 27 June 2023 the insurer determined that the claimant’s pre-accident weekly earnings (PAWE) amount was $462.66.
The claimant requested an internal review of the insurer’s PAWE decision of 27 June 2023.
On 13 July 2023 the insurer issued their internal review decision in which the insurer varied their PAWE decision to $664.52.
The claimant has requested a merit review of the insurer’s internal review decision dated 13 July 2023.
SUBMISSIONS
The claimant was a self-employed Uber delivery driver at the time of the motor accident. The claimant submits:
(a) the insurer failed to include all income received in the relevant pre-accident period;
(b) the insurer made an excessive allowance for business expenses compared to actual business expenses;
(c) Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid for services provided by the claimant represents earnings received by the claimant because he was not registered for GST, and
(d) his PAWE falls under Schedule 1, cl 4(2)(a) of the MAI Act on the basis he contends he was not earning continuously in the 12 month period before the motor accident, until 8 March 2023.
The insurer relies on a report of Procare Forensic Services dated 20 June 2023 and submits:
(a) pursuant to the Federal Court decision in Uber B.V. v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 110 GST the claimant is required to be registered for GST and GST therefore does not represent earnings received by the claimant, and
(b) PAWE is $857.10, should cl 4(2)(a) apply, however, Schedule 1, cl 4(1) applies as the claimant was not earning continuously for the purpose of cl 4(2)(a) within the meaning of earning continuously in cl 4(4) of the MAI Act.
REASONS
Issues
The following issues arise:
(a) the amount of the claimant’s business expenses in connection with his work as an Uber delivery driver;
(b) whether GST represents earnings received as an earner for the purpose of PAWE, and
(c) whether the claimant first began to earn continuously when he commenced earning as an Uber delivery driver in March 2023 such that cl 4(2)(a) applies to calculation of his PAWE or alternatively, whether cl 4(1) applies.
What were the claimant’s uber earnings?
Bank statements show a total of $7,233.11 received by the claimant from Uber in the period 8 March 2023 to 18 April 2023. The claimant appears to have included the sum of $424.84 in pre-accident Uber earnings. However, that sum was received by the claimant on 26 April 2023, which is after the accident. Clause 4 is clearly only concerned with earnings actually “received” by the claimant before the accident and not the date on which the work was carried out. Accordingly, earnings received after the accident, even if for work carried out before the accident, are excluded from PAWE.
What were the claimant’s business expenses?
Service fees are payable to Uber but have been deducted by Uber before payment is made to the claimant. Accordingly, the amount deposited into the claimant’s account is inclusive of GST but net of the service fee.
If toll fees are incurred, Uber would generally include reimbursement of same in payments made to the claimant’s bank account. Accordingly, these would need to be deducted as a business expense from the amounts received into the claimant’s bank account. It is unhelpful that the claimant has not provided the English translation for all Uber records, many of which are in Turkish. The statements likely could have been printed in English by first changing the language setting on the claimant’s Uber driver account. In any event, as best as can be discerned from the Turkish documents the claimant does not appear to have incurred toll fees.
In relation to the E-Bike purchase I accept the claimant is entitled to apply the prime cost depreciation method to calculate this expense. The E-Bike to use in the business was purchased for $1,899. Information on the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) website indicates a five year life expectancy, as contended by the claimant, is reasonable. Depreciation expenses are therefore $379.80 per year, which is $7.30 per week. I therefore agree with the claimant’s calculation of $43.83 for depreciation over 6 weeks.
The claimant pays a monthly fee of $44.99 to Samsung for his mobile phone plan which is used for private and business purposes. I accept this is likely equally apportionable to business and private use and that this therefore results in annual mobile phone business expenses totalling $269.94 which equates to $31.15 for six weeks.
I agree with the insurer that electricity should be accounted for in business expenses. The claimant contends he did not have electricity costs, however, presumably allowance is built into his rent for electricity some of which is attributable to his business. That said, electricity for the six weeks in question is likely to be negligible. Most relevant internet sites suggest the average cost of electricity to operate an E-Bike is $0.09 per 30 kilometres which is $0.003 per kilometre. The Uber statements record the claimant travelled a total of 1,076 km in the six weeks before the accident (573km in March and 503km in April), which would equate to electricity costs of $3.23 (1,076 x $0.003).
Australian Business Number (ABN) registration is free.
As to other business expenses such as E-Bike maintenance and repairs I accept the claimant did not incur these expenses in the six week period in question given the E-bike was a recent purchase. Whilst I also accept the claimant likely would incur these expenses going forward, cl 4(2)(a) concerns only earnings received in the pre-accident period in question. It follows that anticipated business expenses are not a relevant consideration if they have not yet been incurred.
The insurer has assessed business expenses at 21% of income based on the ATO small business benchmark for courier services. It would appear the insurer has taken the high end of the range for “motor vehicle expenses” from the benchmark. The range for motor vehicle expenses is 14% to 21%. It is unclear how the insurer says the high end of this range, at 21% applies or how this benchmark applies at all. The benchmark states that the courier services industry generally includes express and guaranteed delivery and interstate transportation. Data is likely obtained from a large portion of businesses operating in the industry using traditional motor vehicles such as cars, vans and trucks all of which would have higher depreciation/asset purchase and running costs than an E-Bike. Absent further information about the data on which the benchmark is based I am not comfortably satisfied the benchmark is a relevant comparison for a business such as the claimant’s using an E-Bike as distinct from traditional motor vehicles.
In any event, I conclude there is sufficient information on which to calculate business expenses actually incurred by the claimant and that this sum is $78.21 for E-Bike depreciation costs ($43.83), mobile phone costs ($31.15) and electricity ($3.23).
The claimant contends that because he is not registered for GST the GST payments, he received from Uber are his earnings received as an earner. However, the Federal Court made clear in Uber B.V. v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 110 that Uber drivers must register for GST. The claimant’s failure to do so does not in turn characterise GST as earnings, given his legal obligation to register for GST and remit GST to the ATO. Even without the Federal Court decision, GST is not income where it has been received by the claimant. This is because as a matter of law, a business not registered for GST is not permitted to charge or receive GST. Such businesses are required to render services at a cost that is exclusive of GST. I do not accept that the act of receiving tax monies and unlawfully withholding those monies instead of remitting the monies to the ATO converts the tax into earnings.
Pursuant to Schedule 1, cl 3(1) of the MAI “loss of earnings” means a loss incurred or likely to be incurred in a person's “income from personal exertion”. It follows from this that “earnings” means “income from personal exertion”. Pursuant to cl 3(2)(a) “income from personal exertion” relevantly means, in the claimant’s circumstances of self-employment, the “proceeds of any business carried out” by the claimant. As a matter of law GST is not “proceeds” of a business which the business owner is entitled to enjoy as their personal earnings. GST is a tax collected by the business owner on behalf of the government and then passed onto the government. If the claimant choses to ignore his legal obligations in this regard, GST is not converted to earnings. The GST remains at all times, by law, a tax amount payable by the claimant to the government regardless of whether the claimant has complied with his legal obligation in this regard. The situation is that the claimant simply continues to hold onto the GST monies on behalf of the ATO. Accordingly, GST is excluded from PAWE.
On the basis of the above I am satisfied on balance that the claimant’s earnings received as an earner through Uber from 8 March 2023 to 18 April 2023 were $6,497.34, calculated as follows:
(a) gross earnings inclusive of GST: $7,233.11;
(b) less 10% GST = $6,575.55, and
(c) less business expenses of $78.21 = $6,497.34 in gross earnings received by the claimant from the business.
If cl 4(2)(a) were to apply, this equates to PAWE in the sum of $1,082.89.
Does cl 4(2)(a) apply?
Clause 4(2)(a) applies if:
“…on the day of the motor accident, the earner was earning continuously, but had not been earning continuously for at least 12 months--the weekly average of the gross earnings received by the earner as an earner during the period from when the earner started to earn continuously to immediately before the day of the motor accident,”
Whether a person is earning “continuously” on the day of the motor accident is determined by cl 4(4), which provides:
“For the purposes of [clause 4], an earner earns continuously if he or she obtains earnings from permanent employment or from a source that, on the day of the motor accident, was likely to continue for a period of at least 6 months to provide earnings to the earner on the same, or a similar, basis to the basis on which the earnings were being provided as at that day.”
The claimant contends that prior to the accident he worked as an engineer in Turkey until October 2022. The claimant contends that from an unspecified date in October 2022 until 8 March 2023 he did not work. The reasons for this are not known. No evidence whatsoever has been provided by the claimant in support of this contention. This is inadequate on the part of the claimant. It allows no assessment of whether, why and to what extent the claimant did not work before 8 March 2023.
Pursuant to s 6.24(1)(a) of the MAI Act the claimant must give the insurer sufficient information to enable the insurer “to be satisfied as to the validity of the claim and, in particular, to assess whether the claim or any part of the claim, may be fraudulent”. This includes being satisfied as to the validity of any part of the claim, including the claimant’s contention he did not work from October 2022 to 8 March 2023. At present, there is no evidence upon which to test the validity of that contention.
As a Turkish national the claimant presumably received pay slips and attended to annual tax returns in Turkey. The fiscal year in Turkey is 1 January to 31 December. The claimant ought to have provided the following as a minimum in relation to his employment in Turkey:
(a) complete payslips for the period 19 April 2022 to the date he travelled to Australia in February 2023;
(b) his tax return at least for the year 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, and
(c) evidence of cessation of employment or break in employment in Turkey and the reasons why employment ceased or there was a break in employment (for example, termination, redundancy, retirement, long service leave, annual leave, carer’s leave, injury, or other reason).
Clause 4(2)(a) requires that the claimant had not been earning continuously for the 12 months before the accident. The claimant has not provided any evidence in support of his contention he did not work from October 2022 to 8 March 2023. Accordingly, there is insufficient information upon which to determine whether the claimant had not been earning continuously before 8 March 2023.
However, even if the claimant established he did not earn continuously in the 12 months before the accident separate to that issue, cl 4(2)(a) requires a determination as to whether the claimant was earning continuously as of the date of the accident within the meaning in cl 4(4). If the claimant was not earning continuously within the meaning in cl 4(4) as of the date of the accident his PAWE falls under cl 4(1). This is because cl 4(1) applies unless one of the exceptions in cl 2 applies. In this case, the relevant exception is said to be cl 4(2)(a). If that is not established, cl 4(1) applies and the claimant’s earning circumstances before March 2023 only then become relevant in so far as the claimant received other earnings in the 52 weeks before the accident.
As noted, cl 4(4) defines the basis on which a person earns “continuously” for the purpose of cl 4(2)(a). The question to be determined is whether the earnings the claimant was receiving as an Uber delivery driver were “likely to continue for a period of at least 6 months … on the same, or a similar, basis…” [emphasis added].
The six month period under consideration pursuant to cl 4(4) is 19 April 2023 (date of the accident) to 18 October 2023. The claimant must establish the basis on which he was earning, or a similar basis, as of the date of the accident was likely to continue until at least 18 October 2023.
In my view, cl 4(4) requires an assessment of the totality of the earning circumstances that existed as of the day of the motor accident that is, all of the basis upon which the earnings were received, and not just whether the person had employment or a source of income that was likely to continue. The fact of employment or other source of earnings as of the day of the accident is simply a pre-requisite to triggering cl 4(2)(a). The basis upon which the claimant received earnings in that employment or from that source then determines whether he was earning “continuously” from that employment or source for the purpose of cl 4(2)(a).
If cl 4(2)(a) intended only that the employment or source of earnings was likely to continue for at least six months cl 4(4) would only need to say a person earns continuously “if he or she obtains earnings from permanent employment or from a source that, on the day of the motor accident, was likely to continue for a period of at least 6 months.” However, cl 4(4) does not end there. The clause goes on to require that the employment or source of earnings was likely “to provide earnings to the earner on the same, or a similar, basis” for at least six months. Those additional words must have a purpose and that purpose. Accordingly, what needs to be considered is the basis on which the earnings were received from the employment or other source and whether that basis was likely to continue and not simply whether the employment or source of earnings was likely to continue.
If it were only required that the employment or source of earnings was likely to continue for 6 months cl 4(2)(a) would likely lead to enrichment in many situations, which is not the intention of the MAI Act. For example, what of a person employed on a part-time basis, say a retail assistant who, after a break in employment commences employment 4 weeks before their accident during a busy trading period such as over Christmas and New Year. They work their first four weeks in that employment averaging full time hours because it is the busy holiday period. Then the accident occurs. But for the accident, they would have gone on to work only say on weekends after the busy holiday trading period ended. If their PAWE were assessed under cl 4(2)(a) based on full time earnings during the four week holiday trading period despite the intention that thereafter the employment would continue on a different basis such as limited to weekend work, they would be over-compensated for loss of earnings after the accident. This is because their earnings were not expected to continue on the same full-time basis but were expected to be on a part-time basis after the accident. This situation is accommodated for in the MAI Act by the inclusion of the additional words “to provide earnings to the earner on the same, or a similar, basis” in cl 4(4). As noted, those additional words must have a purpose and I consider that purpose is to require enquiry into the basis upon which the earnings were received and not just that there was employment or other source of earnings likely to continue.
The claimant’s source of earnings was self-employment as an Uber driver. The earnings he received through that source averaged $1,082.89 per week after accounting for GST and business expenses. The basis upon which the claimant received those earnings that is, an average of $1,082.89 per week, must be considered because of the words “to provide earnings to the earner on the same, or a similar, basis” in cl 4(4). One basis upon which a person receives earnings is on the basis of either full-time (or full time equivalent) or part-time (or part-time equivalent) work. One cannot assess whether a person was likely to continue to receive earnings on “the same or a similar basis” without looking at such basis upon which the stated earnings were received at the time of the accident.
The claimant’s earning circumstances that is, the basis on which he generated average weekly earnings of $1,082.89 as of the day of the accident were as follows:
(a) the claimant typically worked seven days per week, rarely taking a day off, as demonstrated by the Uber statements which itemise the days on which the claimant made deliveries. For example, from 20 March 2023 to 10 April 2023 inclusive the claimant worked 22 days straight, with no day off, and
(b) the claimant typically worked in excess of 50 hours per week (100 hours per fortnight), even when making allowance for essentially “split shifts” on some days where the claimant for example worked around four hours or more in the morning until around lunchtime then recommenced in the evening working six or seven hours into the night (for example, the Uber records show on a typical day such as 18 March 2023 the claimant made his first delivery at 7.43am and had reasonably constant deliveries until 12.33pm which is a period of around 4.75 hours of work. The claimant then recommenced work by making his next delivery at 5.29pm and had constant deliveries until 11.30pm which is a period of around six working hours giving a total of 10.75 hours worked on 18 March 2023).
Having examined the documents, I agree with the insurer’s assessment of 54 hours per week and find that the claimant worked on average 50 to 55 hours per week (100 to 110 hours per fortnight) before the accident in order to receive the earnings he received, as demonstrated by the Uber transaction records which record the delivery times.
Accordingly, in order to receive average weekly earnings of around $1,082.89 as of the day of the accident the claimant worked the equivalent of full time hours plus overtime by working six to seven days per week, often working 10 hours or more per day. That is the “basis” on which he received average weekly earnings of $1,082.89.
The next question is whether that basis, or a similar basis, was likely to continue for at least six months after the accident that is, until at least 18 October 2023. Relevantly, at all material times the claimant is on a student visa with the following restrictions:
(a) he must be enrolled in a course of full-time study, and
(b) he must not work more than 48 hours per fortnight when his course is in session (the visa documentation says a maximum of 40 hours per fortnight but other information indicates this was increased by the Australian government to 48 hours per fortnight so I will adopt that figure for the purpose of this decision).
Whist there is no reason why the claimant’s source of earnings (Uber) would not likely have continued for at least six months the evidence establishes the basis on which he was receiving earnings from that source prior to the accident (on the basis of the equivalent of full time hours or more) was not likely to continue for at least six months because of the visa conditions.
It is understood at the time of the motor accident the claimant had the benefit of the government’s relaxation on work restrictions in connection with student visas arising from the COVID-19 pandemic meaning he was permitted to work in excess of 48 hours per week at that time. In this regard, the Australian Government Department of Home Affairs advises on their website that:
“Student visa work restrictions were relaxed throughout the pandemic, and completely removed in January 2022. This allowed student visa holders to work over their normal limit of 40 hours per fortnight to address workforce shortages. This ended on 30 June 2023.
The Australian Government has announced that student visa holders already working in the aged care sector on 9 May 2023 can continue to work unrestricted hours in the aged care sector until 31 December 2023.”[1]
(emphasis added)
[1] >
The claimant was not working in aged care as at the day of the motor accident and there is no evidence he is able or likely to do so. Accordingly, for the claimant the working restriction would have taken effect again on and from 1 July 2023. As such, the claimant would only have been able to continue earning on the basis he was earning as of the day of the accident (that is, on the basis of full-time hours or more each and every week) until 30 June 2023. This falls short of the six month post-accident period for the purpose of cl 4(4), which continues until 18 October 2023.
In considering whether the claimant was likely to receive earnings on the same or a similar basis it must be expected that the claimant will comply with his visa obligations and other legal obligations whilst residing in Australia. This includes continuing to be enrolled in a full time course of study, complying with the restriction on working hours and remitting GST to the ATO. If the claimant fails to comply with any one or more visa conditions, he is likely to have his visa cancelled meaning he would not be permitted to work in Australia at all.
The claimant was enrolled in full time study to at least 25 August 2023 and has an ongoing requirement to continue to be enrolled in full time study. For the period 1 July 2023 onwards, he was restricted under his visa to working not more than 48 hours per fortnight until at least 25 August 2023 when his previous course was due to end. Thereafter, the claimant is required to continue to be enrolled in full time study and accordingly, save for when the course is not in session (which would be for limited periods) the work restriction continues.
Accordingly, as of the day of the accident the claimant was only likely to continue to receive earnings on the same or a similar basis that is, on the basis of working in excess of full time hours, up until 30 June 2023. Thereafter, the claimant likely would have earned on a basis equivalent to part-time work, as he would not have been able to work more than 48 hours per fortnight after 30 June 2023 during all periods his course was in session. This would result in a significant reduction in earnings of around 50% as hours would have reduced from around 100 to 110 hours per fortnight to a maximum of 48 hours per fortnight for the period from and after 1 July 2023 save for the occasional week when his course was not in session. The claimant would not have been able to generate the same or similar earnings of around $1,082.89 per week by working half the number of hours he had to work before the accident in order to receive those earnings.
Receipt of earnings on the basis of working the equivalent of part-time work for the majority of the 6 month post-accident period occurring after 1 July 2023 is not the “same or similar basis” to receiving earnings on the basis of working the equivalent of full-time hours or more. As the claimant would have been unable to receive earnings on the basis of the equivalent of full time employment each and every week after 30 June 2023 because the relaxation on the work restriction ended on that date, he could not have expected to receive earnings on the same or a similar basis to that on which he received the earnings as of the day of the accident for at least 6 months. The claimant was therefore not earning continuously within the meaning of cl 4(4) and accordingly, the requirements of cl 4(2)(a) are not satisfied.
As the claimant has not established he was likely to earn on the same or similar basis for at least six months after the accident cl (2)(a) does not apply and instead, clause 4(1) applies to calculation of the claimant’s PAWE.
What is the claimant’s PAWE under clause 4(1)?
Under cl 4(1) the claimant’s PAWE is calculated on the basis of his Uber earnings from 8 March 2023 until the day before the accident plus any other earnings the claimant received in the 52 week period before the accident from 19 April 2022 to 18 April 2023.
I have calculated above the claimant’s gross earnings as an Uber driver before the accident were $6,497.34, after accounting for GST and business expenses. However, I do not have evidence of the claimant’s other earnings in the 12 months before the accident.
The claimant says he was earning as an engineer in Turkey until at least October 2022. However, the claimant has not provided evidence of his earnings in that employment or any other employment prior to 8 March 2023. The claimant should be given an opportunity to provide evidence of his earnings in the period 19 April 2022 to 18 April 2023. The insurer should be given an opportunity to consider that information and recalculate PAWE under cl 4(1) to include any other earnings received in the 12 month pre-accident period.
Costs
The claimant seeks costs on the basis exceptional circumstances exist that justify payment of legal costs under s 8.10 of the MAI Act in circumstances where this is otherwise a matter where legal costs are not permitted by the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation (the Regulation).
As a merit reviewer, I do not have jurisdiction to allow costs based on exceptional circumstances. Pursuant to s 8.10(4)(b) of the MAI Act only the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) can permit payment of legal costs if the Commission is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. Pursuant to s 8 of the Personal Injury Commission Act (PIC Act) the Commission consists of the President, Deputy President and non-presidential members, and does not include merit reviewers. A separate application for costs based on exceptional circumstances would need to be made to the Commission.
By way of observation only, the claimant has not proved evidence in support of his contention he did not work from October 2022 to 8 March 2023. The claimant has an obligation to give full disclosure of all information and documents that may be relevant to his claim. Under s 6.24 of the MAI Act the claimant is required to provide sufficient information for the insurer to assess the validity of the claim, which would include assessing the validity of such contentions. No documents were provided in relation to the claimant’s earning circumstances prior to 8 March 2023 even though the claimant says before this he worked until October 2022. A number of documents have been provided in Turkish, without English translation. Directions were issued in this merit review to obtain further documents from the claimant. There does not appear to be anything factually or legally complex about this matter. The matter would likely be even less complex if there were disclosure by the claimant of documents about his earning circumstances before 8 March 2023 and provision of the English translation for foreign language documents relied on by the claimant.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above:
(a) the claimant’s gross earnings as an earner through Uber in the period 8 March 2023 to 18 April 2023 are $6,497.34;
(b) the claimant has not established he was earning continuously as of the day of the accident, as defined in cl 4(4);
(c) accordingly, the exception to cl 4(1) in cl 4(2)(a) does not apply;
(d) the claimant’s PAWE therefore falls for assessment under cl 4(1);
(e) there is insufficient information upon which to determine PAWE under cl 4(1) as the claimant has not provided any documents or information regarding the earnings he received as an engineer from 19 April 2022 to at least October 2022;
(f) the claimant is to have an opportunity to provide information regarding his earnings as an engineer (or otherwise) in the 12 month period before the motor accident, and
(g) once the claimant has provided further information the insurer is to recalculate PAWE under cl 4(1).
Accordingly, the determination is as follows:
(a) the claimant’s gross earnings from Uber in the 12 month pre-accident period are $6,497.34;
(b) the claimant is to provide the insurer with information and documents about any other earnings received in the 12 month period before the accident within a reasonable period of time;
(c) the matter is remitted to the insurer for redetermination of the claimant’s PAWE under cl 4(1) once the claimant has been provided with a reasonable opportunity to provide further information and documents about other earnings received in the period 19 April 2022 to 18 April 2023, and
(d) there is no jurisdiction to determine costs on the basis of exceptional circumstances under s 8.10 of the MAI Act.
LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES
In making this decision, I have considered the following:
· The Application, Reply and supporting documentation;
· MAI Act;
· Motor Accident Guidelines,
· the Regulation 2017, and
· PIC Act.
2