1. The proposed settlement of $85,000 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 $2,395.17 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 8 June 2024 at 10.15pm when she was the front seat passenger in a car which was t-boned by a vehicle that failed to give way (the accident); she was 26 years of age at the time (p 3).
2. The claimant was treated at the accident site by ambulance paramedics and then taken to St George Hospital (the hospital) (pp 60 - 66). The paramedics observed a large full thickness laceration to the right sided forehead - 10 cm long, lower abdominal pain, left sided groin contusion and cervical spine tenderness (p 66).
3. On arrival at the hospital, the claimant was sutured in ED for a large laceration to her forehead, radiological investigations revealed multiple facial fractures (including the right frontal bone, right/left ethmoid bones, right nasal bones and anterior skull base) which were managed conservatively (p 60). The claimant was discharged from the hospital on

11 June 2023 to the care of the plastics team and for a review with outpatient ophthalmology (p 80). 4. The claimant arrived in Australia about six months before the accident and resided here on a temporary graduate vias (485 post graduate visa - pp 18 and 163) whilst working as a casual warehouse picker and salad maker (at Woolworths Group Limited (Woolworths) and Fishbowl Services Pty Ltd at Rockdale (Fishbowl)). The claimant was working a 36-hour week (for both positions) at the time of the accident (p 167 ff). 5. The claimant made a claim for common law damages (pp 1 - 8) and AAI Limited t/as AAMI (the insurer) has admitted liability for the common law damages claim (p 9). 6. On 30 September 2025 the insurer made a settlement offer for the common law damages claim, in the total sum of $80,000 (non - economic loss (NEL) - nil, past economic loss (PEL) - $5,000, and future economic loss (FEL) - $75,000 (pp 411 - 414) (the initial settlement offer). 7. The claimant accepted the initial settlement offer and signed a deed of release on

7 October 2025 (pp 418 - 419). 8. On 9 February 2026 the insurer revised the initial settlement offer and increased the offer of settlement to $85,000 (the revised settlement offer). The revised settlement offer was accepted by the claimant when she executed a revised deed of settlement dated

9 February 2026 (ALAD pp 1 - 2). The deed identified the deductions sought to be made from the settlement as required by law such as Centrelink and for the weekly payments made to the claimant for past wage loss in the amount of $2,395.17. 9. The insurer has made no allegation of contributory negligence, no amounts have been advanced by the insurer, and the insurer seeks a deduction for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid of $2,395.17. 10. The claimant is entitled to statutory benefits for all her reasonable and necessary treatment expenses related to the motor accident for life, pursuant to the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act). 11. The claimant is not entitled to damages for NEL (pp 12 and 411). 12. Since the accident the claimant has moved to Hobart as a condition/requirement of her visa, where she continues to work for Woolworths Group Limited as a store team member (p 22). 13. The claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner. 14. The insurer has acknowledged that it will not deduct from the settlement any amounts refundable to Medicare. 15. The claimant will receive an amount of $82,604.83 clear of deductions after the settlement is approved.

1. The accident occurred on 8 June 2024 when the claimant was travelling as a passenger in a car, driven by her co-worker, at Caringbah when the car she was travelling in was hit by another vehicle that failed to give way.
2. The accident caused several injuries to the claimant, which are identified in paragraph 24 below.

1. The claimant is currently 26 years of age.
2. The claimant was educated in Nepal and obtained a bachelor's degree in microbiology in 2023 (see paragraph 52(b) below).
3. At the time of the accident the claimant was on a working visa and employed as identified in paragraph 4 above.

1. The claimant suffered several injuries identified in paragraph 24 below.

1. Ambulance officers attended the accident scene, where it was observed that the claimant suffered from a large full thickness laceration to her right-side forehead, amongst other injuries and was taken to the hospital (p 60ff).

1. On 8 June 2024 the claimant was admitted to the hospital (p 78 ff).
2. The claimant suffered a laceration to the forehead, which was sutured. Investigations also revealed multiple facial fractures - the right frontal bone, right/left ethmoid bones, right nasal bones and the anterior skull base (p 25).
3. The claimant was managed conservatively and discharged on 11 June 2024 with Panadol and referred to the "Plastics' team" in the Ambulatory care unit and for further review at the outpatient ophthalmology clinic (pp 79 - 80).
4. The hospital provided a certificate of incapacity for the claimant from 8 June to 6 July 2024 (p 43).
5. When seen at the plastic and ophthalmic outpatients, no further treatment was apparently recommended (p 36).

1. There were no reports provided from treating specialists in the settlement bundle. I suspect there were no treating specialists apart from those seen at the hospital.

Dr Petros Patroulias - general practitioner (GP) - 24 June 2024

1. Dr Patroulias (Myhealth Rockdale Pty Ltd) was the claimant's GP and provided a certificate of capacity on 24 June 2024, which certified the claimant was fit for full-time work from

1. The following CT tests were the significant tests obtained at the hospital for the claimant.

1. The CTs revealed various craniofacial fractures, including the right frontal bone, right/left ethmoid bones, nasal bones and anterior skull base (p 82). There were no intracranial haemorrhage or adverse findings made and it was not necessary for follow up scans to be obtained (p 92).

1. The CT revealed no acute cervical spine fracture with normal spinal alignment and no paravertebral haematoma (p 82).

1. The claimant was reviewed by two specialists at the request of the insurer to assess her whole person impairment (WPI).

Dr Robin Mitchell (occupational physician) - 25 March 2025

1. Dr Mitchell noted the history of the claimant's injuries after she hit her head and lost consciousness.
2. Dr Mitchell noted the current complaint provided by the claimant was that she continued to experience the occasional pain in her forehead (p 26).
3. Dr Mitchell noted the claimant's restrictions as to functional capacity for the following activities before symptoms developed:

(a) sitting is not challenging;

(b) standing for up to 12 hours;

(c) walking for any distance, and

(d) lifting up to 10kg.

1. Dr Mitchell also noted the claimant remained nervous when in traffic, although she did not drive and no longer undertakes any sport/recreational activity since the accident (pp 26 - 27).
2. Dr Mitchell considered the claimant's spinal alignment was normal, as were the range of movements in her neck and thoracolumbar back (p 27).
3. Dr Mitchell opined the claimant's prognosis was "reasonably good" and she can undertake work on a full-time basis and would have been unable to undertake her pre-accident duties one month post - accident (pp 29 and 31 - 32).
4. Dr Wallace opined the claimant will not require any future treatment of any nature (p 30).
5. Dr Mitchell assessed the claimant's WPI as 0% impairment (p 31).

Dr Robyn Mitchell - supplementary report dated 15 July 2025

1. A further report was requested by the insurer to address the issue of the claimant's skin scarring, which had not been addressed in Dr Mitchell's earlier report.
2. Dr Mitchell observed there was a healed scar which was noticeable but was not symptomatic (p 34).
3. Dr Mitchell assessed WPI at 2% using the TEMSKI scale (p 34).

Dr Grant Walker (neurologist) - 31 December 2025

1. The claimant was examined and assessed for her WPI at the request of the insurer, following a direction from me at the preliminary conference on 4 November 2025 referred to in the settlement conferences identified below.
2. Dr Walker noted the claimant says she was well, despite getting the occasional headache behind the right eye, for which she takes Panadol and or Neurofen as a combination, if warranted (p 36). Apart from this medication she takes no other medications.
3. Dr Walker noted there were no abnormal neurological signs, he considered the claimant had made a good recovery and did not require further treatment apart from "prm analgesia" (p 37).
4. Dr Walker agrees with the findings made by Dr Mitchell in his reports and assessed WPI of 2% for scarring (pp 38 - 39).

Allied health treatment - benchmark - initial assessment report - 25 June 2024

1. The claimant was reviewed by benchmark rehabilitation - for an initial assessment to determine her ability to engage in pre-accident roles following the accident (p 68). It was noted that she continued to experience chest pain with physical exertion and increased stress and anxiety when a passenger in a car (p 69). These issues have all resolved and are addressed in the medical reports obtained by the insurer or in correspondence with the claimant. It was noted in the initial assessment that the future treatment and care needs for the claimant were reported as "nil" (p 69).
2. The initial report was reviewed closely, and nothing arises for consideration in this decision, except to note the claimant injuries have largely resolved.

1. There were three preliminary conferences as identified below.

1. At the preliminary conference the claimant was asked about several matters as follows:

(a) the claimant had obtained a bachelor's degree in microbiology from a university in Nepal - "Tribhuvan";

(b) the claimant has not worked as a microbiologist since graduating from Tribhuvan in 2023;

(c) it was her intention to work in the field of microbiology, but she has not been able to secure work in this field, as she has limited experience and possibly the accident has interfered with this along with her recent move to Tasmania;

(d) it was acknowledged by the claimant that obtaining work in the field of microbiology would be challenging and she intends to undertake postgraduate studies in nursing, undertaking a Master of Nursing degree. This course of study will be explored further once her visa application for permanent residency has been granted, when this is likely to occur is uncertain;

(e) she does not intend to work for Woolworths, indefinitely;

(f) she has scar "build up" over the healed wound on her forehead, which appears to be progressing slightly i.e. it was growing;

(g) she experiences pain around the scarring in cold weather, which she experiences once a month. On a self-assessed scale of 1 - 10, this pain is between 5 and 6. She does not generally experience pain in this region in the warmer months i.e. in the hotter season she doesn't get pain often;

(h) when she experiences pain it is not a "throbbing pain", it is more moderate;

(i) she has not seen a GP about the pain since moving to Hobart in March 2025;

(j) she treats the pain symptoms with either bed rest or Panadol, if it happens at work, and

(k) she plans to stay in Tasmania for the next two to five years at the very least, until her visa is sorted.

1. The insurer was also asked to clarify its reasoning/basis for the $80 net per week loss allocated by the insurer in the settlement for FEL, it appears to be an arbitrary sum, not allocated on an hourly rate of income. Its rationale is a little uncertain but in all the circumstances appears to be reasonable.
2. Having regard to this additional information and taking into account the FEL assessment identified in the insurer's submissions in support of the settlement, I considered I would be assisted by a further IME from a neurologist to address WPI, the scarring and its progression (as described by the claimant above), the likely pain issues for the claimant into the future and how they/it should/will be managed.

1. The settlement approval was re-listed on 12 January 2026, following receipt of Dr Walker's 29 December 2025 report. It was noted the insurer had not yet fully reviewed Dr Walker's report or had an opportunity to consider whether the initial settlement offer needed to be revised. The insurer was granted leave to file an amended settlement bundle to include

Dr Walker's report, any amended settlement offer and amended submissions if appropriate. 2. The settlement approval was listed for a further preliminary conference on 9 February 2026. 3. On 6 February 2026 the insurer filed an amended settlement bundle as directed, the insurer had made the revised settlement offer, which considered further contingencies that may affect the claimant's FEL, following the observations made in Dr Walker's report.

1. On 9 February 2026 the matter was listed for a further preliminary conference. It was noted there was no amended deed of settlement accepting the revised settlement offer. The insurer was directed to file the executed deed of settlement for the revised settlement offer, which was filed following the conference (ALAD p 1 - 2).
2. The claimant was questioned about her understanding of the revised settlement offer, whether there was any coercion or duress in accepting the offer, that the settlement if approved would resolve her common law damages claim, she could have legal representation but has declined to do so and there were nil payments from Centrelink to be deducted. The claimant's detailed responses are identified below in paragraph 71ff.

1. The insurer has calculated the sum of $5,000 for FEL having regard to the following:

(a) the insurer calculated the claimant's pre-injury earnings for both positions at Fishbowl and Woolworths in the amount of $540.94 net per week;

(b) the closed period of four weeks loss of wages was allowed for from dated of the accident to 8 July 2024, including super of 11.5% and Fox v Wood of $210, the total sum was $2,622.41;

(c) a further buffer of $1,500 was allowed to cater for the fact the claimant did not return to work at Fishbowl until 17 July 2024, and

(d) the insurer rounded the sum to be offered from $4,122.41 to $5,000.

1. The insurer calculated the sum of $80,000 having regard to the following:

(a) the claimant was assessed as having a working life of 41 years before retirement age;

(b) the claimant was working a 35-hour week prior to the accident;

(c) the insurer noted the claimant intended to continue to reside in Australia and to continue working, and

(d) the insurer allowed an "arbitrary" sum for a base wage loss of $80 net per week for 41 years, less 15% for vicissitudes, plus 14% for superannuation, totalling $71,690.50, which was then rounded up to $80,000 to allow for a reduction in the claimant's capacity to engage in employment when she may occasionally experience pain from the scarring and or headaches (p 425).

Deductions sought to be made by the insurer for weekly payments of statutory benefits

1. The insurer seeks to deduct from the settlement the amount of $2,395.17 for statutory payments made to date.
2. I am satisfied the insurer is entitled to the deduction sought for the statutory payments made in the amount of $2,395.17 (p 420).

1. Clause 14D(3)(b) of the Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020 provides that the 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 and in paragraphs 66 to 70 below when assessing the settlement and whether it should be approved.

"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. 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

(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."

The Personal Injury Commission's Procedural Directions

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. After reviewing the Application and its supporting documentation including the insurer's amended bundle and the amended deed of release, I am satisfied it complies with cl 10 of the Commission's Procedural Direction MA3, as the Application includes details of the amount of the proposed settlement and a breakdown of the amount allowed for each head of damage (p 421ff), and the total amount of deductions sought to be made from the settlement (ALAD p 1 - 2).

THE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL CONFERENCE - 9 February 2026

1. On 9 February 2026, the claimant appeared at the settlement approval conference by MS Teams.
2. The claimant was questioned about her understanding of Dr Walker's report and whether she disagreed with any of his observations and or findings. The claimant had no disagreement with any of the content or observations contained in Dr Walker's report.
3. The claimant indicated she was willing to accept the revised settlement offer.
4. The claimant also acknowledged that she was aware she could retain a legal practitioner to assist but had declined to do so.
5. The claimant indicated she was aware that the settlement is a full and final resolution of her claim for damages arising from the accident and that no coercion or duress had been brought to bear on her to accept the settlement.
6. The claimant is aware she is entitled to lifetime care benefits.
7. There were no Centrelink payments to be made, which was acknowledged by the insurer.
8. The claimant was aware that the insurer sought to deduct from the settlement the sum of $2,395.17 for wages paid by the insurer to 8 July 2024.
9. I indicated, I proposed to approve the settlement.

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 $85,000 for both PEL and FEL.
2. I am satisfied that the amount of $85,000 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 her claim and that she can make no further claim for damages for economic loss.
2. I approve the settlement.

1. The proposed settlement of $85,000 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 $2,395.17 from the proposed settlement sum by way of recovery for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid to the claimant under Division 3.3.