Legal Research
Cases
Schutz v AAI Limited t/as GIO

Schutz v AAI Limited t/as GIO

Case [2025] NSWPICMR 22 25 August 2025

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MERIT REVIEWER
CITATION:	Schutz v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWPICMR 22
CLAIMANT:	Paul Schutz
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as GIO
MERIT REVIEWER:	Bianca Montgomery-Hribar
DATE OF DECISION:	25 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; merit review; dispute regarding amount of weekly payments of statutory benefits under section 3.7; claimant self-employed small business owner; late claim; weekly payments limited to second entitlement period; statutory interpretation of section 3.7, AB (a pseudonym) v Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission considered and applied; whether calculation of post-accident earnings for the purposes of section 3.7(2) should consider entire financial year; Held – section 3.7(2) requires post-accident earnings to be calculated by reference to earnings after the first entitlement period; there is no basis upon which to base the calculation under section 3.7(2) on the full financial year if that period is not after the first entitlement period; claimant’s entitlement to be calculated accordingly; reviewable decision set aside.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE Issued under s 7.13(4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 1. The reviewable decision is set aside. 2. In substitution, it is determined that: a. the claimant’s pre-accident weekly earnings are $2,340.85, and b. the claimant’s post-accident earnings are: i. for the period 30 November 2023 to 6 December 2023 (inclusive): $nil, being a total loss of earnings for the purposes of s 3.7(2)(a); ii. for the period 7 December 2023 to 31 March 2024 (inclusive): $1,745.62, being a partial loss of earnings for the purposes of s 3.7(2)(b), and iii. for the period 1 April 2024 to 24 August 2024 (inclusive): $nil, being a total loss of earnings for the purposes of s 3.7(2)(a). 3. The insurer is to reassess the claimant’s entitlement to statutory benefits for the second entitlement period on the basis set out in (2) and attend to any shortfall in payment forthwith. 4. The insurer is to pay the claimant’s legal costs in the amount of 16 monetary units and disbursements in the amount of $4,820, plus GST.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

Paul Schutz (claimant) was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 26 August 2023 (accident). On 30 November 2023, Mr Schutz made an application for personal injury benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) on AAI Limited t/as GIO (insurer).
On 21 December 2023, the insurer accepted liability for statutory benefits for up to 52 weeks after the accident. This entitles Mr Schutz, inter alia, to weekly payments of statutory benefits.
A dispute has arisen between Mr Schutz and the insurer as to the correct calculation of his post-accident earnings. This dispute primarily arises as Mr Schutz is a self-employed business owner.
In summary, the insurer submits that Mr Schutz’s post-accident earnings should be calculated based on his profit and loss statements for specific periods as he does not draw a wage. Mr Schutz submits that, due to the nature of his business, this would be unfair and instead his post-accident earnings should be calculated…

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.

Continue reading Schutz v AAI Limited t/as GIO

Details

AGLC: Schutz v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWPICMR 22
Case: [2025] NSWPICMR 22
Decision Date: 25 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schutz v AAI Limited t/as GIO involved a dispute over the amount of weekly statutory payments under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The claimant, a self-employed small business owner, sought merit review of a decision regarding the weekly payments of statutory benefits after a motor accident. The issue at hand was whether the calculation of post-accident earnings under section 3.7(2) of the Act should consider the entire financial year or be limited to earnings after the first entitlement period.

The court had to determine the correct interpretation of section 3.7(2) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. Specifically, it needed to decide whether post-accident earnings should be calculated based on the entire financial year or only after the first entitlement period. The court considered the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly those outlined in AB (a pseudonym) v Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission, to resolve this question. It examined the legislative intent and the practical implications of each interpretation.

The court held that section 3.7(2) required the calculation of post-accident earnings to be based on earnings after the first entitlement period. It found that there was no basis in the legislation for calculating earnings based on the entire financial year if that period was not after the first entitlement period. Consequently, the claimant’s entitlement to weekly payments was to be calculated accordingly. The court set aside the reviewable decision, finding it was not in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court included setting aside the reviewable decision and directing that the claimant’s entitlement to weekly payments be recalculated based on earnings after the first entitlement period. This decision clarified the scope of section 3.7(2) and provided a clear guideline for future cases involving similar issues under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

Orders