Peric-Djordjevic v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Peric-Djordjevic v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 449
CLAIMANT:	Nikola Peric-Djordjevic
INSURER:	Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA
MEMBER:	David Ford
DATE OF DECISION:	1 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claims assessment dispute about the amount of damages to be paid to the claimant under sections 7.36(3) and 7.36(4); claimant was riding his motorcycle when he was struck by the insured motor vehicle at an intersection; insurer admitted liability and no allegation of contributory negligence; claimant suffered fracture of the right femur, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and subsequent lower back pain; claimant at the time of the accident was a university student; subsequently graduated from university; claim for past and future economic loss; Held – claimant is entitled to damages for past and future economic loss.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE Issued under s 7.36(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 Assessment of claim for damages made in accordance with s 7.36 of the Act On the issue of liability for the claim the Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA’s insured owed a duty of care to the claimant, breached that duty of care and the claimant sustained injury, loss and damage as a result of that breach of duty.1. The amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim is $192,376 which includes any statutory benefits paid by the insurer.2. The amount of the claimant’s costs taking into account the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim, assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and the Motor Accidents Injuries Regulation 2017 are the regulated costs.3. Attached to this certificate are reasons for my assessment.4.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

On 6 March 2018 Nicola Peric-Djordjevic (the claimant) was riding his motorcycle along Fairfield Road near the T-intersection with Albert St at Woodpark. It then transpired, the motor vehicle being driven by the insured driver, approaching from the opposite direction, suddenly made a right hand turn across the path of the claimant’s motorcycle, whereupon a collision occurred.
It is submitted on behalf of the claimant; he sustained the following injuries:
·        injury to lower back;
·        injury to right leg;
·        fracture of the right femur;
·        scarring to the right thigh;
·        atrophy of the right thigh;
·        injury to the left leg, soft tissue;
·        psychological injury, and
·        chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
The claimant was taken by ambulance to Westmead Hospital where he was admitted. On
7 March 2018, he underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture of the right femur. He remained in hospital for a period of five days and was subsequently discharged on crutches. He came under the care of his general practitioner, Dr Ducic and undertook physiotherapy. Subsequently, the hardware was removed by Dr Graham, orthopaedic surgeon on 18 January 2019. He commenced Exercise Physiology, which continued until
18 September 2019. It is further submitted he developed low back pain in July 2019, which he attributed to an altered gait. An MRI scan was performed on 27 July 2019, which did not reveal any abnormality.
At the time of the accident he had just commenced university studies, undertaking a Bachelor of Science degree course. He deferred his studies for a period of 12 months, re commencing in February 2019.
In August 2019, he commenced working at the Outback Steakhouse as a waiter but was only able to work there for a few months, before resigning from this employment because of ongoing pain. In early 2020, he changed university degrees and commenced a Bachelor’s degree in Entrepreneurship and Game Design at Western Sydney University. For a short period, he worked at Kmart as a retail assistant from August 2021 to July 2022, working on average three shifts per week seven hours per shift, from 7.00am until 3.00pm earning approximately $32 per hour, plus superannuation. He ultimately resigned from this employment, as he was not able to cope with prolonged standing and walking due to debilitating pain. He also briefly worked at Chemist Warehouse, but it is submitted, he could not cope with the prolonged standing, climbing ladders and lifting.
He graduated from university in 2023 with a Bachelor of Entrepreneurship. He completed formal studies in November 2022. From March 2023 until March 2024, he commenced a full-time position with Strategic Care Services Pty Limited, as a customer service consultant, and then a Systems Support officer earning $55,000 gross per annum in May 2023. His salary was increased to $60,000 gross per annum in July 2023. It was increased to $65,000 per annum in November 2023. It is submitted the prolonged sitting he experienced caused a lot of pain and stress because he could not take regular rest breaks. He was not able to work from home, because he was required to work on site.
From March 2024 he obtained employment as a technical artist with Velvix working full time and earning $65,000 gross per annum. This was a combination of office and work from home. It is submitted this work was flexible and he could take regular rest breaks. He was also able to utilise a sitting and standing desk to accommodate his restrictions. He was made redundant from Velvix in November 2024.
Since November 2024 he stated he has been seeking other employment but has not been able to obtain work. He has also been applying for an Australian public service role in the Public Sector which can more accommodate his physical and psychological restrictions. He also has sought employment as a technical artist but has been unsuccessful.
At the assessment conference, he stated just because he worked full time in these employment roles, did not mean he was not in pain. He is only looking for part time work at the present time, so he can manage his symptoms. It had been submitted by his solicitor he had lost the opportunity of joining the Royal Australian Air Force with the intention of ultimately becoming a commercial airline pilot. However, at the assessment conference, counsel for the claimant stated he no longer claimed the loss of opportunity of joining the Air Force.
The claimant was born in 2000 and is presently 25 years of age. The Medical Service by virtue of Certificate and Reasons of Medical Assessor Wayne Mason dated 12 April 2022 determined his whole person impairment in respect of psychological injuries to be 6%. The injuries caused by the motor vehicle accident were certified by Medical Assessor Mason as follows:
· post-traumatic stress disorder (partially resolved).
The medical service by virtue of the Certificate and Reasons Medical Assessor David Gorman dated 29 January 2023 determined his whole person impairment in respect of physical injuries to be 4%. There was a further assessment of physical injuries by Medical Assessor Nigel Minogue, who determined his whole person impairment to be 9%. The injuries caused by the motor vehicle accident as certified by Medical Assessor Minogue are as follows:
·        lumbar spine, soft tissue injury with radicular elements lower limbs;
·        right leg mid shaft femur fracture, with thigh atrophy;
·        right thigh, scarring, and
·        left leg soft, tissue injury and scarring.
The insurer wholly admitted liability and accordingly the claim comes before me solely to assess damages.

Outline issues in dispute

The following issues have arisen in this matter:
(a)    past economic loss;
(b)    future economic loss;
(c)    past superannuation, and
(d)    future superannuation.
The main issues requiring my determination are as follows:
(a) to what extent if at all, have the claimant’s injuries and ongoing disabilities resulted in the claimant suffering a diminution in his ability to earn an income from the date of the accident up until the present time and for the remainder of his working life, and
(b) what is the entitlement to damages which flow from the findings on the above issues.

Documents considered

I have considered the documents provided in the application and the reply and any further information provided by the parties.

Submissions made by the claimant

The solicitor for the claimant served statements from the claimant’s mother and sister. In this matter there is no claim for past or future domestic care and assistance. I have noted the contents of both statements. Neither the claimant’s mother nor his sister was questioned at the assessment conference. Furthermore, the claimant is not entitled to damages for non-economic loss. The provision of these statements was of no probative value in my determination of this matter.
Two reports were served from Dr Dias, occupational physician, dated 8 July 2019 and
6 April 2020. In his initial report, I note the following on page 18 of his report,
“In my opinion, Mr Peric-Djordevic is likely to experience an ongoing restriction in earning capacity into the foreseeable future, as a result of his compensable physical injuries stemming from the subject accident. At the present time, in my opinion he remains partially incapacitated for employment as a result of his compensable physical injuries. In my opinion he would be fit to work within the following restrictions, pertaining to his compensable physical injuries,
·        He is fit to work or study on a full-time basis ie full time hours and full-time days.
·        He should avoid lifting any items weighing greater than 10 kg on a repetitive basis.
·        He should avoid performing any heavy pulling or pushing duties using force greater than 10 kg on a repetitive basis.
·        He should avoid performing any tasks that involve prolonged walking for greater than 2 hours at a time.
·        He should avoid performing any tasks that involve prolonged standing for greater than 30 minutes at a time.
·        He should avoid performing any tasks that involve prolonged driving for greater than approximately 1 hour at a time.
·        He should avoid performing any tasks that involve prolonged kneeling or squatting.
·        He should avoid performing any tasks that involve repetitive staircase climbing or prolonged walking on an uneven ground.”
In his second report dated 6 April 2020, I note the following on page 7 of his report under the heading “Present Activities”,
“Mr Peric-Djordevic is a left-hand dominant individual. He is able to write and use a computer, however, he is limited by his sitting tolerances of approximately 20 to 30 minutes and frequently he has to take a break from seated computer based tasks every 25 to 30 minutes to stretch his lower back for approximately 3 minutes when he was studying for university assignments and examinations .He is independent with respect to his activities of daily living and self-care tasks ,such as eating, showering, dressing, toileting and transfers but does struggle at time on putting on shoes and socks due to lower back pain.”
On page 18 of his report, he repeats the opinions expressed in his early report which I have referred to above in paragraph 17 above.
A report was also served from Dr Ben Teoh psychiatrist dated 25 April 2020. He was of the opinion the claimant’s reported chronic pain physical disability and significant anxiety symptoms were because of the motor vehicle accident. He noted the claimant reported poor concentration, avoidance behaviour, fear of safety, insomnia, nightmares and hyper vigilance. He also noted the claimant tried to work last year but struggled because of his pain and anxiety symptoms. Dr Teoh was of the opinion the psychiatric condition is caused by the motor vehicle accident which resulted in psychological trauma and physical injury with pain and disability.
I refer to the report of Dr David Kumagaya dated 16 September 2020. He opines the following under the heading “Examination” on page 1 of his report,
“Upon mental state examination Mr Peric-Dlordevic presented as cooperative, engaging. and polite. there was no psycho motor disturbance. He noted Mr Peric-Djordevic’s mood was described in ongoing dysphoric and anxious terms. His speech was normal, and he thought form was logical and coherent. He thought content consisted primarily of post-traumatic stress disorder stresses and ongoing depressive and anxious conditions. He did not identify any acute risk to himself or others. His cognition was grossly intact, and his insight and judgement were reasonable.”
I refer to the report of Dr Jonathan Herald, orthopaedic surgeon, dated 13 November 2023. He states the following on page 2 of his report,
“Unfortunately, despite having had a successful surgery, he had excruciating thigh pain which he said was related to the hardware that was present. Eventually he underwent the removal of the hardware on 18 January 2019 and in fact this was earlier than the surgeon was happy to remove the hardware as he wanted to wait a full year, however, Nicola wanted the hardware out sooner rather than later. He signed a consent form understanding that there was a risk of fracture. Following the removal of the hardware, he gingerly returned to physiotherapy and strengthening exercises over the subsequent 5 months on the concern that he did not wish to refracture the bone.
Unfortunately, in about July that year, he started developing back pain. He also developed radiculopathic symptoms in his left lower leg. This was despite the fact that he had been trying exercise Physiology to build up muscle bulk in his right thigh but despite this, he continued to have atrophy of the muscles in his right thigh. An MRI scan was performed in about December 2019, and it confirmed quadricep muscle atrophy in the vastus lateralus portion of the quadricep muscle most likely related to the fracture and subsequent surgeries and unlikely.to recover.
Since then, he has continued to have back pain and radiculopathic symptoms predominantly down his right leg at present. He takes painkillers has physiotherapy and acupuncture as well as doing home exercises he takes paracetamol, Panadol Osteo and Ibuprofen and as needed.”
On page 3 of his report, he notes the claimant continues to have weakness in his right thigh and leg and is unable to return to recreational sporting activities as a result of his muscle loss. He accepts his injuries were caused by the motor vehicle accident. His subsequent limping as a result of his muscle losses resulted in secondary back problems such as Spondylosis.
I refer to the report of Surra Mobarak, psychologist dated 19 February 2025 I note the following under the heading “Current Status” on page 14 of his report,
“Currently Mr Peric-Djordevic faces significant physical and psychological challenges, despite receiving treatment including physiotherapy, psychological counselling and medication Zaldiar for pain and Melatonin (for sleep disturbance) he continues to experience severe symptoms. These include ongoing pain weakness in his right thigh and leg and psychological distress such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. As a result, his ability to engage in normal daily activities is significantly limited.
He remains unemployed and has been receiving benefits from his compulsory third party CTP claim since 2018. While he has attempted various employment roles in the past, he has been unable to maintain work due to the severity of his symptoms. His condition has prevented him from returning to physically demanding tasks or engaging activities he once enjoyed.
On page 16 of his report, he sets out in detail the claimant’s physical and psychological limitations.”
I refer to the report of Professor Steve Vucic dated 14 June 2025, on page 2 of his report, he opines the claimant requires intensive physio and hydrotherapy with core strengthening and muscle strengthening exercises particularly of the right vastus lateralis muscle. There is no doubt that his symptoms are as a direct result of the accident I would thoroughly support his medical care being funded through legal means.
I refer to the report of Dr Edward Graham dated 20 June 2025. He opines the following on page 2 of his report,
“I reviewed Mr Peric-Djordevic again on 17 February 2025, where he was complaining of back pain in his stye around the scar and atrophy of the muscle. He was finding it difficult to work due to back and leg symptoms. On examination the wound was well healed the hip was pain free to flexion and rotation range of motion of the knee was 0 -100 degrees and was able to varus and valgus loading. There was wasting of the lateral thigh muscle. He was able to extend the knee against gravity.”

Submissions made by the insurer

The insurer arranged for the claimant to be examined on a medico legal basis by Dr Greg McGroder, occupational physician, and I refer to his report dated 7 May 2020. On page 3 of his report, he records the claimant worked part time in the hospitality industry as a waiter with the Outback Steakhouse from 19 August 2019 to 12 October 2019, working 12 to 16 hours a week. The claimant stated he stopped work because of back pain. On page 4 of his report under the heading “Current Status” I note the following,
“He said that his worst problem involves his lower back. There is pain there even at rest it is made worse by bending and lifting sitting and standing in the one position, walking long distances and driving. It radiates down the front of the thighs more so the right than the left.
He said that there is pain over the site of the fractured femur even at rest and he has lost sensation around the scar. He said that he is concerned by the unsightly scar and wears clothes that cover it.”
On Page 6 of his report, I note the following under the heading “Causation”,
“Early records demonstrate that the only injuries sustained was a fracture of the right femur. He is now complaining of low back pain. He said that this came on over a year after the accident. Investigations to the extent of an MRI had been normal. Temporality that would suggest that the back condition is not related to a fractured femur. A well-healed fractured femur would not have resulted in any form of imbalance that would have resulted in a consequential low back condition.”
Dr McGroder further opines the claimant has some non-specific backache not related to the accident. He also notes the right femur fracture has stabilised. There is some ongoing muscle wasting and this may well improve with the passage of time. On page 8 of his report, he states once the claimant has finished his university studies, he should be employable and there should be no effect of his fractured right femur on his ability to obtain work.
The insurer also served a report from Dr Christopher Rickard Bell, psychiatrist dated

18 September 2020. He has provided a comprehensive report. I note the following under the heading “Current Symptoms” on page 8 of his report,
“Currently Mr. Peri-Djordevic has nightmares about the motor accident and the motorbike. He dreams about not being able to brake in time and there are flashbacks about motorcycles. He is not happy when he is driving. His appetite is normal, and his weight is stable, although his weight has increased by 10 kg. His mood is angry, and he feels emptiness and despair at times. There are no suicidal feelings. He had a panic attack when he was filling out the form in relation to the accident. He has had panic attacks whilst driving and he is avoided of motor bikes and pedestrians. he has a constant fearfulness about having permanent damage.
On page 9 of his report, he states the claimant is now suffering chronic pain syndrome with chronic lower back pain.
He also has a preoccupation with the scar on his leg as well as atrophy of his quadriceps
He notes the claimant believes he has lost the strength of his quadriceps and has a permanent disability in his leg where the fracture occurred.”

One page 11 of his report he opines the following,
“The diagnosis is post-traumatic stress disorder in partial remission. I believe the psychiatric diagnosis is wholly attributable to the subject motor vehicle accident. In terms of prognosis, I believe the prognosis is a little guarded because of the ongoing symptoms of pain which he attributes to the motor vehicle accident and the lower back pain is diffuse, ill-defined and difficult to quantify. Mr Peric-Djordjevic does relate it to his family history as his mother suffers back pain and there is concern about the identification of having a permanent injury with the back, which influences his overall prognosis. I believe with adequate treatment the prognosis would improve.”
The claimant was also seen on the medico legal basis by Dr Robin Mitchell, occupational physician, and I refer to his report dated 3 March 2025. I note the following on page 4 of this report under the heading “Subsequent Injuries”,
“On 24 December 2018 Mr Peri-Djordjevic was involved in a minor MVA while on L plates in a vehicle with his mother who was a licenced driver in the front seat. A vehicle apparently burst into his lane causing some minor scratches to his vehicle. There was no physical injury reported, but he believes his anxiety increased for six weeks or so and then settled down. He was able to continue driving.”
I note the following under the heading “Diagnosis” on page 8 of his report,
“Mr. Peri-Djokovic reports ongoing pain in the lower lumbar back with no clinical indication of any ongoing injury and no radiological abnormality following the subject injury of 6 March 2018. The symptoms therefore appeared to be of a soft tissue nature. He has made a good recovery from the fracture injury sustained in the right femur following open reduction, internal fixation, and the subsequent removal of the metal fixators.”
Dr Mitchell in his report under the heading “Current Capacity for Work” inter alia, opined the claimant should be able to manage work on a full-time basis, however fixed and awkward spinal postures should be avoided by ensuring regular posture movement throughout the day. On page 10, under the heading “Employability” he opined the following,
“His accident-related injuries no longer impact upon his capacity to obtain engage and maintain employment although he would have had difficulty matching any form of physical work for a period of at least 3 or 4 months after the subject injury while normal bony healing occurred
He is fit in my opinion to work for normal 8-hour day, 5 days a week in any form of work consistent with his education training and experience at this time and into the foreseeable future.”
The insurer served a report from the Vocational Capacity Centre dated 22 May 2025 I refer to the report of Dr Matthew Henricks where he states the following on page 11 of his report:
“During the present assessment standardised testing of relevant cognitive abilities and skills revealed a formidable intellect. Mr Peric Djordevic has the capacity for intermediate and some advanced clerical work. He also has the capacity to retrain up to a university degree standard provided he is sufficiently motivated to do so. From a psychological perspective there is no reason for Mr. Peric- Djordevic to resume the career path he was on prior to his retrenchment in November 2024 .Commenting on Mr Peri-Djordevic functional capacity to perform IT work would be beyond my area of expertise ,however during our time together

Mr Peri-Djordevic did not express any doubts as to his physical capacity to return to such work.”
The insurer also served the report from Dr Kelvin Chong; occupational physician dated

9 May 2025. In relation to this report, the solicitor for the insurer submitted Dr Chong determined the claimant has the capacity to work 38 hours per week with overtime. He noted there was some physical limitations imposed on the claimant’s work; however, he is now suitably qualified for sedentary IT work, in which these restrictions could arguably be accommodated with relative ease.

Reports from the medical service

I refer to the Reasons and Certificate of Medical Assessor Nigel Minogue dated
23 July 2024. I note the following on page 13 of his reasons,
“There has been considerable documentation related to the development of this low back pain which is noted. I also note that there is no history of low back pain in any document presented for the assessment. When one considers the development of the symptoms, the absence of any signs of verifiable radiculopathy, the absence of any pathology or any imaging undertaken one is left with the determination of causation.
The reader is referred to permanent impairment guideline 8/4/2022 paragraph 1.7.
‘The motor accident does not have to be sole cause, as long as it is a contributing cause which is more than negligible. Considering the question would this injury have occurred if not for the accident might be used in some cases’
In considering this directive from Motor Accident Guidelines and recognising that there was no evidence of low back pain prior to the subject accident, I consider there is sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between the subject accident and the development of low back pain.
His diagnosis, therefore, is a fracture of the mid shaft of the right femur requiring open reduction and internal fixation which has healed in anatomical alignment and development of low back pain with lower limb radicular elements but no evidence of verifiable radiculopathy.”

REASONS

Past loss of earnings

The solicitors for the insurer referred to the claimant’s history of Osgood-Schlatter’s disease with bilateral tibial tuberosities which was recorded in his clinical records in 2012. None of the treating doctors or medico legal specialists referred to above in my Reasons comment on whether this disease, post-accident, had continued to trouble the claimant. I note at the assessment conference, the claimant confirmed he had obtained a black belt in karate two years before the accident. The fact he, at one stage, suffered from this disease, I find is of no relevance to my determination of his claim for past and future loss of earnings.
The solicitors for the claimant in their submissions dated 23 June 2025, firstly, make a claim for past economic loss from October 2019 to August 2021, which they state is a period of 138 weeks. This calculation is incorrect. The period is a total of 100 weeks. Secondly, at the assessment conference, counsel for the claimant submitted a further claim for past economic loss from the period 1 November 2024 to date, which I have calculated to 1 September 2025 to be a period of 44 weeks. The amount claimed on a weekly basis is $265.12 net.
The insurer in their submissions dated 16 June 2025 allow an amount by way of a buffer for past economic loss in the sum of $10,000, which is stated to be an allowance for intermittent absences from work. I assume this also includes an allowance for past superannuation.
I prefer the opinions of Dr Dia and Dr Herald regarding the claimant’s restrictions to work on a full-time basis. I also considered his psychological injuries because of the subject accident. I accept he was not able to continue working as a waiter with the Outback Steakhouse because of his ongoing injuries and disabilities, and I further accept, his ongoing pain and restriction in the lower back is because of the injuries sustained in the accident as determined by Medical Assessor Minogue. I therefore allow the loss of income after his resignation from Outback Steakhouse. To his credit, he undertook full time work commencing in March 2023 and persevered despite his continuing disabilities until 1 November 2024.
At the assessment conference, he stated he is endeavouring to look for part time work but said he is looking for part time work only, so he could manage his symptoms. He stated because of the pain in his lower back he requires an orthopaedic chair to enable him to sit comfortably at a computer and needs to take rest breaks. I accept since November 2024, it has been reasonable for him to endeavour to find suitable part time employment, but having said that, I expect him to undertake more positive steps in the future to secure suitable employment on a full time or part time basis.
Therefore, I will allow past of earnings on the following basis,
(a) from the period 1 October 2019 to 31 August 2021 a period of 100 weeks. Amount claimed is $16.57 net per hour, multiplied by 16 hours, multiplied by 100 weeks, results in a calculation of $26,512, and
(b) from the period 1 November 2024 to 1 September 2025, a period of 44 weeks, I will allow the sum of $265.12 net per week, which results in a calculation of $11,665.
Total amount allowed for past loss of earnings is the sum of $38,177.

Past Superannuation

As claimed by the solicitor for the claimant, I will allow 11% on the sum of $38,177, which results in a calculation for past superannuation in the sum of $4,199.

Future loss of earnings

The solicitor for the claimant submitted I should allow for future loss of earnings in the sum of $1,100 net per week being a reduction of 50% of his work capacity until retirement age. This results in a calculation of $871,046 plus a claim for loss of future superannuation.
The insurer submitted, in the initial submissions, I should allow an amount by way of a buffer in the sum of $40,000. In a subsequent submission dated 16 June 2025, the insurer submitted a buffer of $100,000 including an allowance for future superannuation.
I do not accept the submission made on behalf of the claimant, I should allow future loss of earning capacity based on a net weekly loss, but rather I accept the submission made by the insurer, it is appropriate in the circumstances, to make an allowance by way of a buffer rather than a precise calculation.
Accordingly, the most likely future circumstances for the claimant, is that he will continue to suffer a diminution in earning capacity for the remainder of his working life. Having regard to his age this is a significant period. I therefore determined it is appropriate to award future loss of earnings by way of a buffer in the sum of $150,000, which includes an allowance for future superannuation.

Assessment of damages summary

Under sub-s 7.36 (1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act). I am required to make an assessment of the amount of damages for that liability that a court would be likely to award.
I assess the claim as follows on the findings set out above:
past loss of earnings  $38,177
past superannuation   $4,199
future loss of earnings incl superannuation           $150,000
total of economic losses and non-economic loss $192,376
reduction for contributory negligence                    Nil
TOTAL DAMMAGES ASSESSED   $192,376.

Costs and disbursements

I assess the claimant's legal costs and disbursements in accordance with the MAI Act and the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 as scheduled fees and agreed disbursements.

CONCLUSION

On the issue of liability for the claim NRMA's insured owed a duty of care to the claimant, breached that duty of care and the claimant sustained injury, loss and damage as a result of that breach of duty.
I specify the amount of damages for this claim as $192,376.
The amount of the claimant’s costs, taking into account the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim, is assessed in accordance with the MAI Act as the scheduled costs and agreed disbursements.

LEGISLATION

In making my decision I have considered the following legislation and guidelines:
· MAI Act;
· Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017.
· Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020.
· Motor Accident Guidelines 2017, and
· Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021.

[2025] NSWPIC 449

1 September 2025