Walker v AAI Limited t/as GIO - [2024] NSWPIC 253

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Walker v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2024] NSWPIC 253
CLAIMANT:	Justin Walker
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as GIO
MEMBER:	Elyse White
DATE OF DECISION:	16 May 2024
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant involved in a significant impact when forced head on into a power pole; had previous history of drug abuse; 10 years pre-accident claimant underwent intensive rehabilitation and had been abstinent until around the time of the accident; dispute on cause of relapse, post-accident criminal offences and inappropriate work relationship in breach of terms of employment; claim for past and future economic loss and superannuation; due to intervening events earning capacity difficult to accurately assess; buffers assessed considering claimant’s accident related injuries, age and prospects of future capacity; Held – damages assessed in the sum of $165,000 for past and future economic loss and superannuation pursuant to section 7.35(1) and section 7.36.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE 1. Issued pursuant s 7.35(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act). 2. Assessment of damages in the sum of $165,000 is made in accordance with s 7.36 of the Act. 3. The amount of the claimant’s costs in accordance with the Act is $42,257.60.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

The claimant, Mr Justin Walker says he was injured in a motor vehicle crash along O’Riordan Street, Alexandria when the insurer driver, without warning, changed lanes and pushed his vehicle off the roadway into a power pole.
He has made a claim for common law damages pursuant to the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (Act).
The insurer, AAI Limited t/as GIO wholly admitted liability for the crash and paid statutory treatment expenses. The insurer confirmed no statutory benefits were paid to the claimant.
As a dispute arose between the claimant and the insurer about his entitlement to damages for non-economic loss, a number of applications were lodged in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). Certificates issued by Medical Assessors conclude the claimant’s whole person impairment (WPI) percentage is not greater than 10%. As such, he is not entitled to damages for non-economic loss.

ISSUES

The following issues arose:
(a) what is the nature and extent of the claimant’s injuries sustained in the accident and was the claimant’s relapse into drug addiction caused by the accident?
(b) Has the claimant established an impairment to his work capacity which is productive of past and future economic loss and superannuation?

What is the nature and extent of the claimant’s injuries sustained in the accident and was the claimant’s relapse into drug addiction caused by the accident?

Mr Walker told me on the evening of the accident, he had dropped a friend to the airport at Mascot and was on his way home. He was driving his mother’s Mercedes in the lane closest to the gutter. Travelling along side in the lane next to him was a large Range Rover. The Range Rover without warning changed lanes which forced Mr Walker out of his lane and head…

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 Walker v AAI Limited t/as GIO 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: [2024] NSWPIC 253
Decision Date: 16 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Walker v AAI Limited t/as GIO, the plaintiff, Walker, sought compensation for past and future economic loss and superannuation following a motor accident. Walker was involved in a significant impact when forced head-on into a power pole. The dispute arose from various factors, including Walker's previous history of drug abuse, a period of intensive rehabilitation, and post-accident criminal offences and an inappropriate work relationship. The court was tasked with determining the cause of Walker's relapse, the impact of these events on his earning capacity, and the appropriate assessment of damages. The decision hinged on accurately assessing the extent to which the accident and subsequent events affected Walker's ability to earn income, considering his age and prospects of future capacity.

The primary legal issues were whether the relapse into drug abuse was directly attributable to the accident, how the post-accident criminal offences and the inappropriate work relationship should be factored into the assessment of damages, and how to appropriately calculate the economic loss and superannuation payable under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The court needed to weigh the evidence regarding Walker's pre-accident history, the extent of his rehabilitation, and the intervening events that impacted his earning potential. The court also had to consider the statutory provisions of the Act, particularly sections 7.35(1) and 7.36, which guide the assessment of damages for past and future economic loss and superannuation.

The court held that Walker's relapse into drug abuse, while influenced by the trauma of the accident, was not solely caused by it. The court also found that the post-accident criminal offences and the inappropriate work relationship did not absolve the defendant of liability but did impact the quantum of damages. Considering Walker's accident-related injuries, age, and future earning prospects, the court assessed the appropriate buffers and determined that the damages should be in the sum of $165,000 for past and future economic loss and superannuation. This sum was calculated in accordance with the statutory provisions, ensuring that Walker received fair compensation for his injuries and losses.

The final orders of the court were that AAI Limited t/as GIO would pay Walker the sum of $165,000 as compensation for past and future economic loss and superannuation. The court's decision provided clarity on the factors to consider in assessing damages under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, particularly in cases where multiple intervening events and complex personal histories are involved.

Orders