1. The proposed settlement in the sum of $420,000 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The insurer is to have credit for $61,950.47.

1. Waqar Ul Hassan, the claimant (is currently) 29 years of age. At the time that he was involved in the motor accident, he was 27.
2. As of the date of the accident, he was working as an Uber delivery driver.
3. On 4 September 2023, the claimant was riding his motorcycle south on Bexley Road, Campsie, New South Wales when the driver of the offending vehicle which was travelling west on Cross Street failed to give way causing a collision with the claimant's motorcycle. The claimant was ejected from his motorcycle and landed on the road surface.
4. The claimant lodged an application for damages under common law on 10 April 2025. By letter dated 13 May 2025, the insurer accepted liability for the claim. No allegation of contributory negligence was made.

1. Restrictions on the settlement of a claim for damages are found in s 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act), which is in the following terms:

"8.23 Restrictions on Settlement of Claim for Damages

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

(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 Accidents Guidelines.

6. Clause 7.37 of the Motor Accident Guidelines states as follows:

"7.37U 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;

(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.

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

1. Procedural Direction MA3 concerns the requirement for the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) to approve the settlement of a claim for damages in circumstances where the claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner, and the process for obtaining the Commission's approval of the settlement of the claim.

1. Ambulance officers noted complaints of pain to the left flank and both legs and observed minor abrasions to the claimant's hands, left shin and right knee. The claimant denied any loss of consciousness and had a full recall of events.
2. The claimant was transported to St George Hospital from the accident scene.
3. At St George Hospital, the claimant was diagnosed with left second - rib fractures, right scaphoid and trapezius fracture, and a small, undisplaced fracture of the anterior distal tibia.
4. The claimant was discharged to his home on 8 September 2023 with a right thumb spica, CAM boot and medications. The claimant was certified unfit for work for two weeks, advised to follow up with his general practitioner (GP) within a week to arrange an MRI of the left ankle, and referred to Sydney Hand Hospital under Dr Michael Symes, orthopaedic surgeon.
5. The claimant was reviewed by Dr Malik Alhusouna on 12 September 2023. On 22 October 2023, Dr Alhusouna referred the claimant to physiotherapy.
6. On 22 January 2024, Dr Alhusouna noted that the claimant was still undergoing physiotherapy and was complaining of difficulty sleeping and feeling not ready to drive. Dr Alhusouna referred the claimant to counselling.
7. An X-ray of the right hand and wrist performed on 11 May 2024 showed "no concerning persistent ununited scaphoid fracture or scapholunate widening".
8. On 31 July 2024, the claimant's physiotherapy reported that the claimant was out of the CAM boot and had less left rib pain, and found the right wrist injury to be the most limiting injury at the time.
9. On 10 October 2024, the claimant's physiotherapy reported that the claimant was able to mobilise without the CAM boot and without a wrist brace. The physiotherapist noted a report of very mild pains at times in the claimant's rib and trunk when breathing. Wrist symptoms had reduced but it tended to ache with overuse. The physiotherapist observed significantly increased range of motion in the wrist and that overall function had improved.
10. Dr Alhusouna cleared the claimant as fit to return to work to his pre-injuries duties without restriction from 11 November 2024.

1. The insurer arranged for the claimant to be examined by Dr Robin Mitchell, occupational physician who reported on 6 August 2025.
2. In his report, Dr Mitchell noted relevantly that the claimant was born and educated in Pakistan up to the level of a bachelor degree in computer science and that in Australia he had primarily worked as an Uber Eats delivery driver whilst studying. In relation to ongoing treatment Dr Mitchell noted that the claimant was no longer required physical therapy and that the only medication was Panadol as described as to the claimant's current status at the time of the examination. Dr Mitchell noted:

"Mr Ul Hassan said that he continues to have pain in the left side of the chest, the area where he sustained the rib fractures. He also has ongoing pain in the right groin and left lower leg. He continues to have separate pain in the right hand.

His symptoms would be aggravated with any significant activity undertaken.

He is now in his final stages of attaining a diploma in civil construction design and said that he was having some difficulty managing site work for the final project which was of a geological nature.

He is fully independent with respect to his personal activities of daily living.

He said that he carried out the lighter physical duties within the home unit he shares with two flatmates.

The described symptoms have been stable now for more than 12 months".

1. Dr Mitchell says that the claimant also gave a history of being able to stand for between 20 and 30 minutes, walk for between 20 and 30 minutes, and lift up to 5kg. Driving was limited to between 30 and 60 minutes. Dr Mitchell expressed the following opinion:

Mr Ul Hassan reports ongoing pain in the chest following the widespread left - sided rib fractures sustained in the subject injury on September 2023.

He also has ongoing pain in the right hand following the non-displaced fracture identified in the scaphoid and a small fracture of the trapezium.

He has made a good recovery from the tiny undisplaced fracture at the anterior aspect of the distal tibia, sustained in the same accident.

The prognosis is somewhat guarded due to the nature of the right wrist fracture injury sustained. His rib and chest pain should progressively settle over the next 6 to 12 months.

Mr Ul Hassan has, in my opinion, a current capacity for suitable work that would avoid any aggravation of the reported symptoms and, providing the following precautions were available, he should be able to manage such work on a full-time basis:

• Mr Ul Hassan should manage all physical activities below chest height and close to the body trunk, particularly if repeated or sustained in nature, to avoid aggravating his symptom.
• Any sustained holding and gripping actions with the right hand should be managed with frequent micro-pause breaks to avoid the development of any joint or muscular stiffness that could otherwise aggravate his symptoms".

1. Dr Mitchell assessed the claimant's WPI at 5% relative to the right wrist.

1. At the conference, the claimant confirmed the complaints and limitations that were noted in the report of Dr Mitchell.
2. In response to questions asked by myself in conference, the claimant expanded upon his current symptoms and incapacity.
3. He told me that his weight had increased by 25kg to 107kg by reason of his restricted capacity to exercise. He found it difficult going upstairs and was limited in lifting weights to 5 kg. He had difficulty navigating uneven ground such as he may encounter on work sites.
4. He had not completed his course but it was his intention to apply for a work visa and remain in Australia. He would look for work as a site manager to accommodate his incapacity. He confirmed that he had very sound IT skills. In relation to his psychological condition, he told me that he found the parole process very stressful and wanted it over as soon as possible.
5. I indicated that I had some concerns about the WPI assessment. The insurer's representative, Mr Izzard indicated that the insurer had offered the claimant the opportunity of an independent WPI assessment but he had declined. I reminded the claimant that an independent assessment could be arranged but he was adamant that he wanted the matter finalised and that he would not attend any further medical examinations.
6. The claimant said that he was aware that he was entitled to legal representation and that any settlement would finalise his entitlement to damages although his rights to ongoing medical expenses would remain in place. The insurer would be responsible. It was explained that the insurer's responsibility would end after five years post-accident and that any ongoing claim for medical treatment would be subject to the statutory authority being satisfied that such treatment was reasonably required and then returned to the insurer's submission. The insurer allowed $70,000 for past economic loss as a buffer.

1. The insurer submitted correctly that the claimant was not entitled to damages for

non-economic loss. 2. The claimant's net weekly earnings at the time of the accident were $955.76 per week. It was noted that he was cleared to return to pre-accident work from 11 November 2024, that is, 62 weeks after the accident. The buffer allowed included refundable tax payments made by AAMI of $9,639.00. I consider that the allowance for past economic loss is appropriate. 3. As to future economic loss, the insurer noted that at the time of the accident the claimant was completing an Advanced Diploma of Construction Design and intended to complete a Graduate Diploma of Management Learning. The Advanced Diploma was due for completion this year. The insurer further noted that the claimant had previously been employed as an assistant project manager, teaching assistant/tutor at a government college, casual dispatch member at Woolworths and as a delivery driver at Uber. 4. The claimant is a confident user of Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel and Microsoft PowerPoint. 5. The insurer submitted that Dr Mitchell's opinion that the claimant was capable of working full time with some restriction should be accepted. 6. As to the assumptions that need to be made pursuant to s 4.7 of the MAI Act it was assumed by the insurer that, but for the motor accident, the claimant would have obtained employment in the construction industry earning between $80,000 to $100,000 per annum or $1,538.46 to $1,923.08 gross per week although the claimant's ability to maintain employment in the construction industry was effectively untested prior to the motor accident. The insurer referred to an opinion expressed by Ms Ciara Lynch, rehabilitation counsellor who opined that the claimant had considerable retained earning capacity including roles as a delivery driver, where he could earn $907.70 per week, ICT Support Technician earning $1,482 gross per week or a customer service representative earning $1,499 gross per week. 7. The insurer allowed a buffer of $350,000 including an allowance for future economic loss, which it considered was appropriate. 8. The insurer further submitted that the buffer was appropriate in that it noted it took account of a number of imponderables and that the claimant has significant retained earning capacity and is well motivated to work and study. 9. The insurer had made weekly payments of statutory benefits in the sum of $61,950.47 for which it claimed credit and noted that there may be a refund to Centrelink. 10. If the settlement was approved, the claimant would receive $350,649.53 less any centre link refund.

1. I confirm that the allowance of $70,000 for past economic loss is appropriate. In considering the amount allowed for future economic loss I consider that the submissions made by the insurer are appropriate and that the buffer of $350,000 is in the appropriate range in all the circumstances.
2. I am satisfied that the total proposed settlement of $420,000 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.
3. I am satisfied that the claimant understands that he is entitled to be represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner and does not wish to be represented. I am also satisfied that the claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement sum. I note that the claimant had been afforded the opportunity of an independent WPI assessment by the Commission but was unwilling to undergo further medical assessment.

1. Having considered all the material available, I am satisfied that the proposed settlement should be approved. I note that the insurer is entitled to deduct the sum of $61,950.47 in respect of statutory benefits paid to or on behalf of the claimant.