Issued under s 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

1. The proposed settlement in the sum of $75,000 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act).

1. The claimant, Thomas Hawthorne (Mr Hawthorne), was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 11 September 2023 (the accident).
2. Mr Hawthorne was born in early 1995.
3. On 11 September 2023, Mr Hawthorne was riding a pushbike when the driver of the insured vehicle turned across traffic on Cleveland Street, Darlinghurst and collided with his bicycle. In his Digital Access Claim Form to the insurer, he says that he was "flipped over the car and his bicycle was destroyed. He was taken to St Vincent's Hospital for treatment."
4. At the time of the accident, the compulsory third party insurer was AAI limited t/as AAMI (the insurer).
5. On 11 February 2026, the insurer issued a Liability Notice advising Mr Hawthorne that it admitted liability for his claim for damages under Common Law.
6. The insurer has made a settlement offer of a net sum of $73,572.11 ($75,000 less $1,427.89 which was previously paid to Mr Hawthorne as weekly statutory benefits under Division 3.3 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act))
7. There is no payback or deduction to be made by the insurer, nor are there any Medicare benefits or Centrelink benefits to be paid.
8. Mr Hawthorne is self-represented.
9. The insurer had Mr Hawthorne examined by Dr Robin Mitchell, occupational physician, on

1. Mr Hawthorne gave a history to Dr Robin Mitchell.
2. Mr Hawthorne said that the offending vehicle made a turn across his path and he was hit head on and thrown over the vehicle.
3. He was wearing a helmet and there was no head strike.
4. He did not lose consciousness and was able to mobilise unaided.
5. Mr Hawthorne told Dr Mitchell that he was transferred by ambulance to St Vincent's Hospital for assessment, where investigations showed a minimally displaced fracture of the lateral right clavicle and a right pneumothorax, both of which were managed conservatively.
6. He was kept overnight and discharged the next morning with his right arm in a sling.
7. By the time he saw Dr Mitchell, Mr Hawthorne had made an excellent recovery.
8. Mr Hawthorne gave the following description relevant to his functional capacity:

"Mr Hawthorne said that he could manage the following activities and timeframes before increasing symptoms would develop:

• Sitting for more than 8 hours
• Standing for more than 8 hours
• Walking for long distances
• Lifting up to 40 kg
• Driving for up to 3 hours"

1. Mr Hawthorne further told Dr Mitchell that since the accident he has been able to return to running, cycling and attending the gym.
2. Dr Mitchell undertook a physical examination of Mr Hawthorne and found that his range of movement of his cervical spine, thoracic spine and lumbar spine were all normal.
3. Dr Mitchell found that Mr Hawthorne's range of movement of his shoulders and arms were all within normal limits.
4. Dr Mitchell diagnosed that Mr Hawthorne had made a full recovery from the fracture injury sustained to his right shoulder and he had a good prognosis with no further significant symptoms expected.
5. Dr Mitchell considered that Mr Hawthorne had a current capacity for any form of work consistent with his education, training and experience on a full-time basis, and that included his normal pre-injury duties.
6. I asked Mr Hawthorne about his current symptoms of the injured shoulder and he said that he continues to experience some tightness but he does a lot of stretching.
7. He did not disagree with the view that he had made a very good recovery.

St Vincent's Hospital Discharge Summary of 12 September 2024

1. The St Vincent's Hospital Discharge Summary diagnoses Mr Hawthorne with a right clavicle fracture.
2. The Discharge Summary further noted bilateral comminuted distal clavicular fractures. Both acromioclavicular joints are intact. Both humeral heads are enlocated.
3. The discharge plan included:

2. To remain non-weight bearing in right arm in sling;

3. Follow-up in Fracture Clinic at St Vincent's Outpatients on 18 September 2023...;

4. Patient to utilise paracetamol and Neurofen for analgesia as required;

5. Patient to follow-up with GP 1-3 days post discharge for review of pain control and if any new concerns; and

6. Please present to ED should you have any acute concerns."

Digital Claim Form Evidence (APIB) dated 8 March 2023

1. In his claim form, Mr Hawthorne described the accident as:

"I was travelling home on my bicycle when the driver of the Mini Cooper turned across traffic on Cleveland Street and ran into me. I was flipped over the car and my bicycle was destroyed. I was taken to St Vincents hospital for treatment. At hospital it was determined here that I had fractured my clavicle and suffered a lung contusion."

"At 19:15 on Monday the 11th of September 2023, VEH2 was travelling eastbound on Cleveland St X Edward St Chippendale. VEH1 was turning right when VEH2 who was travelling Westbound was continuing straight onto Cleveland St. VEH1 impacted with VEH2."

Whole person impairment (WPI) letter from AAMI dated 28 July 2025

1. Relying on Medical Reports from Dr Robin Mitchell, St Vincent's Hospital, Myhealth Central Park, and an AHRR 1 - Physiotherapy report, the insurer assessed permanent impairment at below 10%.

1. I refer to the insurer's submissions of 13 February 2026 by way of reference to paragraph numbers:

[1.2] AAMI accepted liability for the damages claim on 11 February 2026.

[2.1] Mr Hawthorne sustained a fractured right clavicle and lung contusion as a result of the accident.

[2.2] Treatment has been conservative with pain medication and physiotherapy.

[2.3] Mr Hawthorne's reported ongoing symptoms include intermittent tightness and right shoulder pain.

[2.4] Mr Hawthorne's pre-accident history includes:

• neuromyelitis optica (autoimmune disease), and
• fractured left clavicle (7 July 2023).

[2.5] Dr Robin Mitchell, in the report of 22 July 2025, opined full recovery from the right shoulder fracture, with good prognosis and no significant ongoing symptoms expected.

[2.6] AAMI will continue to provide reasonable and necessary treatment and/or commercial care irrespective of settlement.

[2.7] Mr Hawthorne advised that he has not received any Centrelink payments.

[3.2] Dr Robin Mitchell assessed Mr Hawthorne at 0% WPI.

[3.3] On 28 July 2025, the Insurer advised Mr Hawthorne that his impairment was not greater than 10%.

[3.4] Mr Hawthorne was not entitled to NEL damages.

[3.5] At the time of the accident, Mr Hawthorne was employed as an environmental scientist earning approximately $935 net/week.

[3.6] Mr Hawthorne reported to Dr Mitchell that he was off work 5 days, then returned full-time to desk duties, with field work restricted for 2 months.

[3.7] the Insurer has allowed a loss of $3,500 (inclusive of superannuation and Fox v Wood).

[3.8] The insurer submits Mr Hawthorne currently suffers no financial loss.

[3.9] Dr Mitchell opined full capacity for unrestricted full-time work.

[3.10] The insurer recommends a buffer of $71,500 for future contingencies.

[4.1] The insurer notes an offer of $75,000 was made on 6 February 2026.

[4.3] $1,427.89 in statutory benefits have already been received and will be deducted.

[5.1] This matter is before the Commission for approval of the $75,000 settlement under s 6.23 MAI Act.

[5.2] The Insurer submits the settlement is appropriate and complies with cl 7.40, being "just, fair and reasonable" and within the likely range of damages.

[5.3] Accordingly, the insurer recommends approval of the $75,000 settlement for past and future economic loss.

1. On 2 March 2026, I held a conference by Microsoft Teams to consider the application by

Mr Hawthorne and by the insurer that I approve the proposed settlement. 2. The insurer made submissions on 13 February 2021 without having filed a formal application for approval and without there being any Deed previously signed by Mr Hawthorne and the insurer. 3. Mr Hawthorne answered questions about his understanding of the settlement proposed of $75,000, less the $1,427.89 which had already been paid to him by the insurer as statutory weekly benefits, and I was satisfied that there was no coercion or duress on his part in accepting the offer which he told me that he had done. 4. I was satisfied that he was aware that the settlement, if approved, would resolve his common law claim for damages once and for all. 5. I asked him about the nature and extent of his current symptoms in his right shoulder and he told me that he felt good, although he still liked to stretch his shoulder, but he did not feel that he had any disability or that he would be inhibited from pursuing his employment or his usual activities, including his activities directed towards physical fitness and cycling. 6. He is back at work and told me that he does not believe there is any prospect of work being affected by reason of his accident. 7. Mr Hawthorne is an environmental scientist and the nature of his work is such that he does not consider that whatever, if anything, is left over from his accident will inhibit his employment. 8. At the approval conference, Ms Adriana Papaspiros told me that she had not prepared a Deed. I requested that she prepare one and arrange to have it signed in anticipation of the formal approval and certification of the approval. 9. I advised both Mr Hawthorne and Ms Papaspiros that I would approve the settlement and would issue my reasons and certificate as soon as possible.

1. The insurer has prepared a Deed of Release, a copy of which has been signed by both parties and the terms of which are reproduced in full below:

Place of Accident: 137 Cleveland STREET DARLINGTON NSW 2008

You (Mr Hawthorne) have lodged a claim for damages pursuant to part 6 of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 ('the Act'), with AAMI for injuries caused by the fault of the owner or driver of a motor vehicle in the use or operation of the vehicle.

You and AAMI have agreed to settle your claim for damages in accordance with the terms of this agreement which constitutes a full and final settlement.

On 02/03/2026 and at the time you sign this Agreement, you were not represented, in respect of your claim, by an Australian legal practitioner and this settlement is therefore restricted by s6.23 of the Act. The terms of this settlement will only take effect if it is approved by the Personal Injury Commission.

As far as this claim is concerned, AAMI insures both the owner and the driver of the vehicle. AAMI is empowered to settle claims on their behalf under s6.17 of the Act mentioned above.

The Payment Amount: AAMI will pay you $75,000.00. This payment will be the full and final Settlement of your claim for common law damages that you have made against the owner or the driver in this matter. This settlement is a binding agreement and enforceable by law if it is approved by the Personal Injury Commission.

AAMI is entitled to make the following deductions from the settlement amount:

• Pursuant to section 3.40(1)(b) of the Act any amount of statutory benefits already paid under Division 3.3 of the Act.
• Any other deductions permitted by Commonwealth or State law including the Social Security Act 1991.

• Not to commence or continue with any legal action in relation to the injuries you received in the accident, and
• To release from any further legal responsibility of the owner or driver and AAMI for common law damages. This includes any other person or any other organisation associated with the owner or the driver.

This Agreement is not an admission by the owner, driver or the Insurer of any liability for your claim.

No interest shall be payable on the said settlement sum provided same be paid within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt by AAMI of:

• A properly executed Agreement of Release; or
• Notice from any relevant statutory authority as to the amount repayable; or
• An Authority to Receive or direction to pay including details for an electronic funds transfer (EFT) whichever is the latest."

"3.40 Effect of recovery of damages on statutory benefits

(1) If a person ('the claimant') recovers damages in respect of the death of or injury to a person caused by the fault of the owner or driver of a motor vehicle in the use or operation of the vehicle then (except to the extent that subsection (2) or (3) covers the case)

(a) ...

(b) the amount of any statutory benefits already paid under Division 3.3 in respect of the injury concerned is to be deducted from the damages (awarded or otherwise paid as a lump sum) and is to be paid to the person who paid the statutory benefits."

"6.23 Restrictions on settlement of claim for damages

(a) the claimant is represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner, or

(b) the proposed settlement is approved by the Commission.

(3) The Commission is not to approve the settlement of a claim unless satisfied that the settlement complies with any applicable requirements of or made under this Act or the Motor Accident Guidelines."

The Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021

1. Rule 95 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 provides:

(1) If a claimant, who is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner, and an insurer have agreed to a proposed damages settlement, the insurer must lodge an application for approval of a damages settlement under section 6.23 of the MAI Act, on behalf of both the claimant and the insurer, within 7 days of reaching the agreement.

"Under section 6.23(3) of the Act, before the Personal Injury Commission may approve the settlement of a claim for damages, it must be satisfied that:

(a) the proposed settlement satisfies the timing requirements in section 6.23(1) of the Act [since repealed];

(b) the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments for the claim were the matter to be assessed by the Commission, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by the claimant, and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement;

(c) the claimant understands that they are entitled to be represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner, and

(d) the claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement."

1. Clause 10 of the Personal Injury Commission's (Commission) Procedural Direction MA3 provides the Application must include:

(a) a deed of release;

(b) the amount of the proposed damages settlement, including a breakdown of the amount allowed for each head of damage and how each amount allowed has been calculated;

(c) the amount of any reductions in the proposed damages settlement including for contributory negligence or any other reduction, including brief reasons for that reduction and how any reductions have been calculated;

(d) the amount of any advance payments that the insurer has made in advance of the settlement and the dates of those advance payments, including brief reasons explaining why those advanced payments were made, and

(e) the evidence, documents and materials relevant to an assessment of the damages settlement including liability notices.

1. When considering the provisions of s 6.23 of the MAI Act and cl 7.38 of the Guidelines along with the rules and practice directions of the Commission, in deciding whether to approve or not approve the claimant's settlement, I need to consider whether:

(a) the amount of the settlement is just, fair and reasonable (appropriateness), and

(b) the claimant understands the settlement and its terms and the effect of the settlement in ending his claim for common law damages (the claimant's understanding).

1. In RACQ Insurance Limited v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (No 2) [2014] NSW SC 1126, the Court stated, when considering the issue of an appropriate damages award:

"It is a relationship of the award to the injury and its consequences ... which is to be proportionate ... It is not a matter to be resolved by reference to some norm or standard supposedly to be derived from a consideration of amounts awarded in a number of other specific cases ... The principle to be followed ... is that the amount of damages must be fair and reasonable compensation for the injuries received and disabilities caused. It is to be proportionate to the situation of the claimant ... and not to the situation of other parties in other actions, even if some similarity between their situations may be supposed to be seen. The judgment of a Court awarding damages is not to be overborne by what other minds have judged right and proper for other situations. It may be granted that a judge who is making such assessment will be aware of and give weight to current general ideas of fairness and moderation. But this general awareness is quite a different thing ...The awareness must be a product of general experience and not formed ad hoc by a process of considering particular cases and endeavouring ... to allow for differences between the circumstances of other cases and the circumstances of the case in hand."

[Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968)119 CLR 118 per Barwick CJ, Kitto and Menzies JJ at paragraph 11].

1. The amount of the offer of settlement that I am asked to approve comprises a sum of $3,500 for past economic loss including Superannuation and Fox v Wood, and both $71,500 for future economic loss.
2. I am satisfied that the amount of $75,000 is a just, fair and reasonable settlement of

Mr Hawthorne's common law claim considering all the legislation, circumstances and materials.

1. I am also satisfied Mr Hawthorne understands this settlement will be a final resolution of his claim and that he can make no further claim for damages for economic loss.
2. I approve the settlement.

1. The proposed settlement of $75,000 is approved under sub-s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act.
2. Pursuant to sub-s 3.40(1)(b) of the MAI Act, the insurer is entitled to deduct the sum of $1,427.89 from the proposed settlement sum by way of recovery for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid to Mr Hawthorne under Division 3.3.