1. The proposed settlement of $95,000 is approved under sub-s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).
2. Pursuant to sub-s 3.40(1)(b) of the MAI Act, the insurer is entitled to deduct the sum of $1,694 from the proposed settlement sum by way of recovery for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid to the claimant under Division 3.3.

1. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 12 June 2025; he was 23 years of age at the time.
2. The claimant was treated at the accident site but not taken to a hospital.
3. The claimant suffered left hand injuries including a micro trabecular injury to the base of the first metacarpal and the head of the third metacarpal, an avulsion fracture of the metacarpal, sprain injury and swelling (p 73 - 74).
4. The claimant was treated conservatively and did not undergo any surgery.
5. The claimant was working at the time of the accident in the construction industry for the RELD Group Ltd as a project coordinator and lost ten days of work due to his injuries (p 13).
6. On 13 October 2025 the claimant made an application for common law damages (p 16ff).
7. On 14 October 2025, AAMI Limited t/a AAMI (the insurer) admitted liability (pp 19 - 21).
8. The insurer has made no allegation of contributory negligence, no amounts have been advanced by the insurer (p 3) and seeks a deduction for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid in the sum of $1,694 [sic] (p 2).
9. On 17 July 2025 the insurer made an offer of settlement to the claimant in the amount of $1,695.25 for past economic loss (PEL), $91,522.05 for future economic loss (FEL) (combined amounts have been rounded up to $95,000), and no amount was offered for non - economic loss (NEL) (pp 19 - 20).
10. The claimant is not entitled to damages for NEL.
11. The claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner, although he has previously stated in correspondence with the insurer that he had a "lawyer" who had provided advice/guidance about the insurer's settlement offer (p 32).
12. On 21 October 2025 the claimant executed a deed of release accepting the offer of settlement in the amount of $95,000. The deed identified the deductions sought to be made from the settlement as required by law such as Centrelink (pp 39 - 40).
13. The insurer had before the settlement approval conference obtained an independent medio-legal report from Dr Nicholas Burke (occupational physician), who assessed the claimant's whole person impairment (WPI) as 0% (pp 52 - 64).
14. The matter was listed on 24 November 2025 for a settlement approval conference. The matter did not proceed on that occasion as I was concerned about how the insurer had assessed the amount offered for FEL. The settlement conference was adjourned to accommodate the filing of the insurer's calculations for FEL.
15. On 3 December 2025 the matter was relisted for the final settlement approval conference after the insurer had provided its calculations for its assessment of the claimant's FEL and its supporting submissions (ALAD 1 - 2).

1. The accident occurred at 4.52pm on 17 June 2025 at the cross street of Fowler Road and Albert Street, Guilford, NSW (the accident).
2. The claimant's motor vehicle (bearing registration number EEP 21J) collided with the insured vehicle (bearing registration number ECP 49N) after it had failed to stop at a stop sign.
3. The accident caused several injuries to the claimant, which are identified below.

1. The claimant is currently 24 years of age.
2. The claimant is right hand dominant.
3. At the time of the accident the claimant was employed in the construction industry as a project manager.

1. The claimant suffered left hand injuries including a micro trabecular injury to the base of the first metacarpal and the head of the third metacarpal, an avulsion fracture of the metacarpal, sprain injury and swelling (p 73 - 74).

General Practitioner (GP) - Dr Naomi Goonetilleke

1. The claimant's GP, first consulted with the claimant on 13 June 2025.
2. On 13 June 2025 the claimant's GP provided a certificate of incapacity for the period from

12 June 2025 to 23 June 2025 (pp 46 - 48). 3. Dr Goonetilleke also requested an MRI test, amongst other tests. The results of the MRI are referred to below. 4. The last certificate provided by Dr Goonetilleke is dated 22 June 2023 and certifies the claimant as fit for pre-injury duties (p 47). 5. The claimant does not appear to have had any further contact with his GP after

1. The MRI test identified below represents the significant test reviewed by Dr Nicholas Burke.

1. The MRI confirmed an ulnar collateral ligament injury of the 2nd metacarpophalangeal joint (MCPJ) (p 78ff).
2. The findings indicated the following:

(a) micro trabecular injury to the base of the first metacarpal and the head of the third metacarpal;

(b) an avulsion fracture of the metacarpal origin of the UCL of the second MCPJ with a moderate sprain;

(c) a mild sprain injury of the RCL of the third MCPJ with minor osseous contusion at the metacarpal attachment;

(d) post-traumatic synovitis of the first CMC joint, and

(e) post-traumatic tenosynovitis of the extensor digitorum (p 80).

Dr Mohammed Baba (orthopaedic surgeon) - 24 June 2025 and 30 July 2025

1. The claimant was referred to Dr Baba at the request of his GP (p 49).
2. Dr Baba noted the claimant had swelling in the metacarpophalangeal joint (MCPJ) and had tenderness between the 2nd and 3rd metacarpophalangeal joint with pain exhibiting on stress testing of the MCPJ of the index finger (p 49).
3. Dr Baba considered that given there was minimal retraction of the ligament that the claimant should be treated non-operatively (p 49).
4. Dr Baba referred the claimant to a hand therapist to be fitted with buddy tapping and to commence swelling controlling exercises (p 49).
5. Dr Baba reviewed the claimant on 30 July 2025 and noted the claimant had minimal pain and "a great range of motion." He noted the claimant's MCPJ felt stable on examination and "was pleased with his progress" (p 51).
6. Dr Baba indicated there was no need for a further consultation unless issues arose (p 51).

Dr Nicholas Burke (occupational physician) - dated 29 September 2025

1. Dr Burke was requested to examine and assess the claimant's condition and WPI at the request of the insurer (p 53).
2. Dr Burke noted the history of the accident on 12 June 2025 and that the claimant was wearing his seat belt at the time. Dr Burke noted the airbags of his motor vehicle were deployed and the vehicle on collision with the insured vehicle had been deflected into the gutter, a fence and a pole (p 54).
3. Dr Burke noted the claimant reported intermittent pain in the MCPJ, between the second and third fingers and for the first two months his grip strength was significantly reduced and randomly gets stiffness and pain around the MP joint region (p 55).
4. Dr Burke also noted there was no ongoing swelling, no deformity or instability and his grip strength had significantly improved. The claimant was able to text, however initially he had difficulty typing and was using his thumb. The claimant had returned to doing heavier household chores and attending the gym, but was doing a reduced routine at the gym focussing on his lower body. The claimant had returned to full time work and was "going well" and was not taking any medication (p 56).
5. Dr Burke's physical examination revealed the claimant had a full range of motion in his eft hand and had a good range of motion in his cervical spine (p 56).
6. Dr Burke considered the claimant had made an excellent recovery whilst noting there was some initial neck symptoms which had resolved. Dr Burke also noted the claimant had returned to work, gets some low-grade residual symptoms on occasions and randomly has periods of stiffness, tightness and pain in the MP joints (p 57). Dr Burke opined the claimant's injuries had stabilised and that he considered the claimant had "sufficiently recovered" (p 59) and had resumed full time employment (p 61).
7. Dr Burke recommended some additional treatment of two to three sessions with a hand therapist to provide a program that he could self-manage (p 60).
8. Dr Burke did not consider the claimant would experience any arthritic changes (p 61).
9. Dr Burke assessed the claimant's WPI as 0% impairment (p 61).

Hand Therapist - Rebecca Kelly - Hand Therapy at Rouse Hill - 6 June 2025

1. Eight sessions of hand therapy by Ms Kelly were approved by the insurer on a fortnightly basis with a discharge date on 13 December 2025, to assist with reducing stiffness and increase his range of movement and strength and to provide a rehabilitation program to enable function and independence (p 68).
2. No reports have been provided by the insurer from Ms Kelly, but I am satisfied having regard to Dr Burke's recommended further treatment referred to above that adequate treatment has been provided by Ms Kelly as authorised by the insurer and referred to in the preceding paragraph.

1. On 15 September 2025, at the initial settlement approval conference, I indicated to the insurer that it had not provided its calculations to support the offer of settlement in respect of its assessment of FEL. The insurer was directed to provide its calculations in assessing the claimant's FEL in the amount of $91,522.05, in an amended bundle (ALAD) on or before

28 December 2025. 2. The claimant was also questioned about his understanding of the settlement, whether there was any coercion or duress, the settlement if approved would resolve his common law damages claim, he could have legal representation but has declined to do so, there were nil payments from Centrelink to be deducted and the extent of his ongoing injuries and symptoms. These matters are identified below. 3. A further settlement was set down for 3 December 2025.

1. On 3 December 2025 it was noted the insurer had filed its ALAD and had provided its calculations to support its assessment of the claimant's FEL in the amount of $91,522.05 (ALAD 1- 2).
2. The claimant was again questioned about his understanding of the settlement, whether there was any coercion or duress, the settlement if approved would resolve his common law damages claim, he could have legal representation but has declined to do so, there were nil payments from Centrelink to be deducted and the extent of his ongoing injuries and symptoms. These matters are also identified below.
3. I indicated I proposed to approve the settlement and would issue my determination in January 2026.

1. At the time of the accident the claimant was 23 years of age, employed full time as a project manager for a construction company.
2. The claimant ceased working for 10 days following the accident and was certified fit for duties on 23 June 2025 and has returned return to his full-time pre-injury duties (pp 47 - 48).
3. The insurer has allowed PEL of $1,695.25, the insurer has calculated this amount on the following basis:

(a) the claimant was employed by the RELD Group Pty Ltd, as a Project Manager earning $55,000 per annum, approximately $900 net per week (p 84);

(b) the claimant's wage records indicated that for the fortnight before the accident he received net pay in the amount of $1,771.39, after tax (p 84);

(c) on 22 June 2025, Dr Goonetilleke certified the claimant fit to work eight hours per day for five days per week with lifting/carrying/pushing/pulling limited to the claimant's tolerance (pp 47 - 48);

(d) by email dated 16 July 2025, the claimant stated that he had returned to work on 23 June 2025 (p 10);

(e) the claimant told Dr Burke that he took a week and a half off work (p 56);

(f) the insurer allowed a loss for one and a half weeks at $900 net per week ($1,350) plus loss of superannuation at 11.5% ($155.25) (p 3), and

(g) the insurer made refundable tax payments in the sum of $190 (p 4).

1. The insurer seeks to deduct from the settlement the amount of $1,694 for statutory payments made to date of $1,695.25 (p 4 - para 49).
2. I am satisfied on the evidence the insurer is entitled to the deduction sought for the statutory payments made, in the amount of $1,694 (the amount it has sought to deduct - p 4 - para 49).

1. The insurer has allowed for FEL in the amount of $93,304.75, calculated on the following basis:

(a) allowing a net loss of $100 net per week until the claimant is 67 years of age;

(b) $100 net per week x 944.5 (multiplier for 44 years) x 85% = $80,282.50;

(c) allowing for future loss of superannuation at 14% - $80,282.50 x 14% = $11,239.55;

(d) the total amount allowed for future economic loss is $80,282.50 + $11,239.55 = $91,522.05 (ALAD 2), and

(e) the insurer allowed for a further rounding up to a total offer of $95,000, which equates to an FEL component in the sum of $93,304.75 (ALAD 2).

1. Clause 14D(3)(b) of the Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020 provides that the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) and the Motor Accident Guidelines (the Guidelines) apply to this application.
2. I have considered the relevant legislation, guidelines and procedural directions, as identified below, in making my decision.

"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)

(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

(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

The Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021

1. Regulation 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

(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 Commission's 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. After reviewing the Application and its supporting documentation including the insurer's ALAD bundle, I am satisfied it complies with cl 10 of the Commission's Procedural Direction MA3, as the Application includes details:

(a) of the amount of the proposed settlement and a breakdown of the amount allowed for each head of damage (ALAD p 2 and pp 3 - 4), and

(b) the total amount of deductions sought to be made from the settlement (pp 2 - 3 and 39 - 40).

THE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL CONFERENCES - 24 November and 3 December 2025

1. On 24 November and 3 December 2025, the claimant appeared at the first and second settlement approval conference by MS Teams.
2. The claimant indicated at both conferences he was willing to accept the offer of settlement.
3. The claimant acknowledged that he was aware he could retain a legal practitioner to assist but had declined to do so.
4. The claimant also indicated he was aware that the settlement was a final resolution of his claim for damages arising from the accident and that no coercion or duress had been brought to bear on him to accept the settlement.
5. The claimant confirmed the observations made by Dr Burke as to his recovery and ongoing issues.

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 $95,000 for both PEL and FEL.
2. I am satisfied that the amount of $95,000 is a just, fair and reasonable settlement of the claimant's common law claim considering all the legislation, circumstances and materials.

1. I am also satisfied the claimant 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 $95,000 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 $1,694 from the proposed settlement sum by way of recovery for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid to the claimant under Division 3.3.