Wright v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance - [2024] NSWPIC 268

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Wright v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2024] NSWPIC 268
CLAIMANT:	Vaoatea Wright
INSURER:	Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance
SENIOR MEMBER:	Brett Williams
DATE OF DECISION:	23 May 2024
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act); miscellaneous claims assessment; claimant injured in an accident at his workplace as a result of a collision between two uninsured forklifts; where accident did not occur on a “road” as defined; claim made on Nominal Defendant; whether section 1.10A applies to the claim; where claim made prior to amendments to the MAI Act by the Motor Accident Injuries Amendment Act 2022 to include section 1.10A; claims for compensation and damages made under the Workers Compensation Act 1987; damages claim settled; worker’s compensation rights extinguished; whether section 30 of the Interpretation Act 1987 applies; whether order for costs should be made in accordance with section 8.10(4)(b); Kraljevich v Lakeview and Star Limited, Maxwell v Murphy, Australian Education Union v General Manager of Fair Work Australia, ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel, Australian Education Union v General Manager of Fair Work Australia, QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Abberton, Patman v Fletcher’s Fotographics Pty Ltd, Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, Croc's Franchising Pty Ltd v Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd, AAI Ltd trading as GIO v Moon applied; Held – a contrary intention sufficient to displace section 30 of the Interpretation Act appears clearly from the text of schedule 4 part 7 section 14; the provision is designed to operate in a manner which is inconsistent with the maintenance of the existing right asserted by the claimant; the purpose and intention of section 1.10A is to make it clear that the provisions of the MAI Act relating to the liability of the Nominal Defendant in connection with a motor accident apply to a claim for statutory benefits in the same way as they apply to a claim for damages; provisions in division 2.4, including section 2.29, restrict the circumstances in which the Nominal Defendant has a liability for a statutory benefits claim; the role played by section 1.10A is consistent with the other provisions in division 1.3 and the overall scheme of the Act; section 1.10A and section 2.29 apply to the claim; the Nominal Defendant does not have a liability to pay statutory benefits to the claimant under Part 3 of the MAI Act because the accident in which he was injured did not occur on a “road”; orders for costs made under section 8.10(4)(b) and section 8.3(4) of the MAI Act.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE 1. Section 1.10A of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 applies to Mr Wright’s claim. 2. The Nominal Defendant is not liable for Mr Wright’s claim. 3. The Nominal Defendant is to pay Mr Wright’s costs in the amount of $9,916.50 inclusive of GST.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Wright (claimant) was injured in an accident at…

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 Wright v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance

Details

AGLC: Wright v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2024] NSWPIC 268
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 268
Decision Date: 23 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wright initiated legal proceedings against Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance (NRMA) in relation to a motor accident that occurred at his workplace. The claimant was injured in an accident involving a collision between two forklifts that were not insured. The accident did not happen on a "road" as defined by the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act). The claimant made a claim on NRMA, which was designated as the Nominal Defendant, and sought compensation and damages. The dispute centred on whether section 1.10A of the MAI Act applies to the claimant's claim, given that the claim was made before the Motor Accident Injuries Amendment Act 2022 introduced section 1.10A. Additionally, the claimant's rights under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 were extinguished after his damages claim was settled.

The court had to determine the applicability of section 1.10A of the MAI Act to the claimant's claim, considering the timing of the claim relative to the legislative amendments. It was also necessary to examine whether section 30 of the Interpretation Act 1987 applied, which generally provides that a subsequent Act does not revoke or alter a prior Act unless the intention to do so is expressly stated or implied. The court considered whether the order for costs should be made under section 8.10(4)(b) and section 8.3(4) of the MAI Act. The court concluded that a contrary intention to displace section 30 of the Interpretation Act is clearly evident in the text of schedule 4 part 7 section 14, as the provision is designed to operate in a manner inconsistent with maintaining the existing right asserted by the claimant. The purpose of section 1.10A is to ensure that the provisions of the MAI Act regarding the Nominal Defendant's liability in connection with a motor accident apply to a claim for statutory benefits in the same way as they apply to a claim for damages. The provisions in division 2.4, including section 2.29, restrict the circumstances under which the Nominal Defendant has a liability for a statutory benefits claim. The role of section 1.10A is consistent with other provisions in division 1.3 and the overall scheme of the Act. Therefore, section 1.10A and section 2.29 apply to the claimant's claim, and NRMA does not have a liability to pay statutory benefits to the claimant under Part 3 of the MAI Act because the accident did not occur on a "road".

The court made orders for costs in accordance with section 8.10(4)(b) and section 8.3(4) of the MAI Act. The decision hinged on the interpretation of legislative provisions and the application of relevant statutes to the specific circumstances of the case, as elucidated through the referenced case law.

Orders