1. The proposed settlement is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 in the sum of $3,500,000 inclusive of costs.

1. On 12 February 2022 the claimant, [BZK] was riding her motor scooter in a southerly direction on [redacted]. A vehicle travelling in the opposite direction to [BZK], failed to stop at a red light colliding with the claimant causing her to be thrown onto the roadway causing serious injuries.
2. [BZK] made a claim against AAI Limited t/as GIO (insurer) the insurer of the at fault vehicle for lump sum damages.
3. The insurer has wholly accepted liability for the claim for common law damages.
4. The insurer has accepted, pursuant to Division 3.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act), [BZK] is entitled to payment of reasonable treatment and care for the rest of her life for her accident caused injuries.
5. [BZK] and the insurer have reached agreement as to settlement of the claim for damages.
6. Because [BZK] is not represented by a lawyer, the settlement must be approved in accordance with the Act.
7. The insurer has lodged the application for approval of the settlement, and it was referred to me for consideration.
8. The insurer and [BZK] have agreed she is entitled to damages for non-economic loss; past economic loss; taxation on paid benefits; and damages for future economic loss. A further claim has also been made and accepted by the insurer for additional travel expenses and accommodation expenses which is agreed.

1. Approval of the settlement is required under s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act and I am not to approve the settlement unless I am satisfied it complies with the requirements of the Act and Motor Accident Guidelines (Guidelines).
2. Clause 7.37 of the Guidelines states I must be satisfied as to the following:

(a) the proposed settlement is just, fair, and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessment for the claim were the matter to be assessed by a Member, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by [BZK], and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement, and

(b) [BZK] understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement.

1. I have considered the documents provided with the insurer's application including, but not limited to, the insurer and claimant's submissions with schedule of damages, claim forms, statements, medicolegal reports, medical records including radiology and clinical notes, financial information and spreadsheets with travel and accommodation costs.

1. [BZK] was born in [redacted]. She is currently [redacted] years old. She has resided in [redacted] since moving to Australia in 2003.
2. She completed her secondary school at age 16 years before obtaining a Diploma in Performing Arts and A Level Theatre Studies at Stockton-Billingham Technical College in the United Kingdom.
3. After moving to Australia, she obtained qualifications in teaching Group Fitness Classes & Personal Training, Diploma in Remedial Massage and various work-related qualification such as Agile Training.
4. At the age of 18 years, [BZK] worked in Spain for about six years where she set up her own swimsuit business.
5. Between 1998 to 2003, she worked in a number of management and media roles in London before relocating to Australia.
6. While restricted by a six-month work visa, [BZK] worked for companies such as [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] in marketing which led to a sponsorship and permanent residency in Australia.
7. At the time of the crash, [BZK] had secured a fixed term contract with [redacted] as a customer marketing and experience manager. Her work activities involved both sedentary and physical outdoor projects requiring frequent travel and long days including some weekend work.
8. [BZK] has a total work incapacity which she says, has robbed her of an excellent chance for promotion within [redacted].

The accident, injuries, treatment and disabilities

1. The crash has changed [BZK]'s life forever.
2. She recalls lying on the roadway after the crash in terrible pain concerned for her friend's dog as she was on her way to dog sit. She was worried she had let her friend and dog down.
3. She knew immediately she had severe injuries to her left leg, neck and back.
4. The police and ambulance arrived and after stabilising her injuries, the ambulance officers conveyed her to St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst.
5. The clinical notes from the hospital note [BZK] had a complex open tibia and fibula fractures of her left leg with vascular compromise and near-complete amputation. She underwent multiple procedures and ultimately progressed to a left below-knee amputation.
6. On discharge, [BZK] was transferred to Eastern Suburbs Private Rehabilitation on

23 March 2022 where she remained for three weeks before she discharged herself. 7. She spent four weeks at Sacred Heart where she was fitted with a prosthetic. This remained unstable causing skin ulceration. She has continued to experience difficulties with her skin condition and the stump. 8. Since the crash, [BZK] has suffered from chronic mental health problems. Her symptoms have included a general heightened level of anxiety; uncharacteristic irritability; diminished frustration tolerance and recurrent and frequent panic attacks; excessive startle response and emotional over-reactivity; chronic depression; intermittent suicidal thoughts; nihilistic attitudes; a sense of isolation; hypervigilance; insomnia; phobic anxiety; marked self-consciousness about the amputation and diminished concentration and memory.

1. On receipt of the application of the proposed settlement agreement, I reviewed the documentation.
2. I requested at the preliminary conference that all parties turn their videos on as it is important to me that [BZK] puts a face to the name of the member considering the proposed settlement and for her to see the insurer's representative. After a short time, she relaxed and was happy to freely express her feelings and confirmed she relied on her support person as she said her memory is not always accurate.
3. Both the insurer's representative and [BZK] expressed concern about the filing process which has been resolved by the Commission which was included in my report.

1. I indicated to the parties I had not formed a view on the proposed settlement as the application included in excess of 330 pages.
2. Although [BZK] is not legally represented, I have the benefit of submissions prepared on her behalf as well a comprehensive and detailed submission presented by the insurer.
3. The insurer's submission includes a helpful summary of the respective positions of the parties, and the settlement is summarised in columns which include the initial claim made by the claimant, the insurer's contention and the amount of the proposed settlement.
4. As my role is to be satisfied the proposed settlement agreement is just, fair and reasonable, my focus is on the settlement amount only.

1. The proposed settlement amount for non-economic loss is $650,000.
2. By virtue of Division 4.3, s 4.11 of the Act, the claimant is entitled to damages for non-economic loss where the degree of impairment is greater than 10%. Section 4.13(1) prescribes a maximum amount for non-economic loss damages which is $691,000.
3. Section 1.4 relevantly defines non-economic loss to mean: -

(a) Pain and suffering;

(b) loss of amenities of life;

(c) loss of expectation of life, and

(d) disfigurement.

1. The question for me becomes what amount is fair and reasonable considering this claimant's entitlement to general damages having regard to the particular circumstances of her case.
2. Damages are assessed with the application of common law principles up to the maximum provided for in legislation. This was explained by Heydon JA in Hodgson v Crane (2002) NSWLR 199 when he said it is not possible to construe the concept of proportionality out of the language of s 134 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. When the threshold of 10% of whole person impairment was passed, the court was required to assess non-economic loss without statutory restraint except for the maximum that may be awarded.
3. According to the authority in Dell v Dalton (1991) 23NSWLR 528 the court determined that the assessment of non-economic loss involved "...questions of fact and degree, and matters of opinion, impression, speculation and estimations, calling for the exercise of common sense and judgment".

1. The insurer submits that despite the obvious seriousness of the claimant's injuries and sequelae, these are not as serious as the maximal type that could be suffered such as a conscious young quadriplegic. Their submissions point out the claimant's intention to engage in regular trips around our state, staying with friends, to study drama, attend shows and concerts including sporting events. She plans to take overseas trips.
2. As alluded to by the insurer, [BZK] has sustained very nasty and painful injuries which has left her with severe disability. Her comprehensive statement describes her life before she sustained her injuries. She says her health was excellent. She was active, enjoying snowboarding, endurance cycling and jogging. She has participated in multi-day cycle events covering 100 to 170km per day over three to nine days. Dancing was a passion, participating in ballet and contemporary dance at the Sydney Dance Theatre. More recently, she purchased new tap shoes just prior to the crash.
3. Her mental health was good. She had a great network of friends and work colleagues. She was highly regarded in the workplace. She volunteered for charities such as the Starlight Children's Foundation and the Salvation Army.
4. [BZK] has struggled with her prosthesis and the stump. She was reviewed for the purpose of her claim by a number of medical specialists in 2022 and 2023.
5. The relevant medical opinion for me to consider are the more recent reports in 2025 by

Dr Brian Zeman, Dr Alice Foran and Dr Chow Chow. There is also a report from the treating psychologist Mr Christopher Basten. 6. In summary, these specialists have diagnosed:

(a) chronic pain syndrome;

(b) gastritis thought to be due to medications for pain;

(c) a likely opiate addiction;

(d) wheelchair bound;

(e) limited prosthesis usage for a maximum of one hour per day;

(f) nightmares and flashbacks;

(g) avoidance behaviours;

(h) persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs or expectations about the world;

(i) markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities;

(j) irritable behaviour, angry outbursts, hypervigilance, problems with concentration and sleep disturbance;

(k) anhedonia, decreased appetite and initial and middle insomnia;

(l) fatigue and themes of worthlessness and decreased concentration;

(m) passive suicidal ideation, and

(n) major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. [BZK] says all her injuries and disabilities; pain and psychological issues have a significant impact on her day. She says her current life is essentially ongoing surgeries, rehabilitation, medical appointments and organising support for the things she can no longer do for herself.
2. She says she rarely socialises and her personal self-care has declined due to exhaustion. She says even though she has come to terms with being alone for the rest of her life she is heartbroken.
3. She says she loved entertaining her friends before the crash. The most meaningful and joy in her life pre-crash was travel. This gave her a sense of freedom adventure and connection with the world.

1. On 14 December 2020, [BZK] commenced a fixed term contract as a customer marketing and experience manager for [redacted] working 38 hours per week. She was paid monthly. Her yearly remuneration of $138,423.33 allowed for compulsory superannuation contributions of $1,000 per month and additional work outside the ordinary hours of 8.30am to 5.30pm.
2. Her duties varied. She travelled to visit clients and help develop marketing content, attend and cost events that required her to remain on her feet for the entire day; travel via public transport, taxis, carry marketing materials such as papers, banners and computer materials.
3. On 24 November 2021 [BZK]'s fixed term contract was extended to 30 April 2022 with an increased annual salary to $173,819.25. Her hours were reduced to 30.4 per week which was a short-term measure with an intention to resume full time after taking the opportunity to work four days a week.
4. Her pay slips for the 31 weeks pre-crash was $1,612.53 net. The insurer accepts

[BZK] has suffered a total incapacity to work as a result of her injuries. 5. Statements from Ms Lisa Vitaris and Ms Carol Harper support the proposition that

[BZK] was a valued employee and was considered for future promotion due to her skill level. Ms Vitaris, [redacted]'s employee confirmed she had spoken to the CEO and believed

[BZK] would likely have been offered a promotion with an annual salary of $180,000 to $210,000. 6. The insurer has accepted this opportunity was open to [BZK] but for the crash and has factored into the calculation of past economic loss and increase in her salary. 7. The proposed sum for past economic loss is $491,972 which is made up of her loss of weekly benefits, plus an increase in weekly benefits from 1 May 2022. 8. An amount for past superannuation follows and the calculation is $51,657. 9. The claimant is entitled to the taxation paid on past benefits which amount to $50,266 as at the date of submissions and the preliminary conference. 10. [BZK] has received statutory weekly benefits since the crash which amount to $335,625.76 which may increase. The insurer is to receive a credit for the amount of paid statutory benefits.

1. [BZK] is currently [redacted] years old. She has 16 years to the date of her retirement at age 70 years.
2. The medical professionals have made the following comments on her work capacity in the future:

(a) she has significant functional limitations due to non-organic factors such as anxiety, depression and pain, and she is unfit or unemployable as per opinions of specialists in these areas;

(b) [BZK]'s ability to work as she did pre-accident is significantly impaired by virtue of her psychiatric symptoms alone;

(c) she is totally incapacitated for work of any kind at the present time;

(d) [BZK] does not have capacity to perform work in sedentary roles and at the moment does not have capacity for work of any kind, and

(e) the depressive symptoms are very likely to impact on her ability to work into the future.

1. Considering the description by [BZK] of her ongoing restrictions, pain and disabilities supported by the medical specialists, I accept she has suffered a total incapacity to work in any role in the future.
2. The most likely future circumstances but for the crash is, [BZK] would have continued in her role with [redacted] or with a similar employer with future opportunities for promotion. This has been taken away from her, and I accept she will never work in this role again.
3. The proposed settlement includes an allowance of $1,250,000 for future loss of earnings which includes an increase in [BZK]'s future weekly earnings of 63%, plus superannuation and a reduction for vicissitudes of 17.5% which accounts for the prospect she may return to some work in the future. I note she has an intention to engage in further studies which may open alternate work opportunities.

1. [BZK] made a claim for the costs of additional travel and accommodation she will incur because of her injuries and disabilities. This claim is provided under s 4.5 of the Act in addition to economic loss, treatment and care.
2. Regulation 9 provides that the kind of accommodation or travel for which damages may be awarded is any accommodation or travel for which the claimant has incurred or is likely to incur as a result of injuries caused by the accident.
3. [BZK]'s claim for damages encompasses claims for supported travel by land and air.
4. The insurer argues that the assumptions underlying her claim is problematic for many reasons. However, an agreement between the parties is a compromise which acknowledges a lump sum which will achieve a level of independence and self-determination for future travel needs which is agreed in the amount of $450,000.

1. The legal basis for [BZK]'s claim for this head of damage has not been articulated. It was based on her own views and online research. The insurer says these assumptions are controversial and not supported by the evidence.
2. The claim is based on additional costs to purchase a suitable home for [BZK] which accommodates her disabilities.
3. The insurer concedes to measure such loss is an imperfect measure. However, they refer to the Court of Appeal authority in Weideck v Williams [1999] NSWCA 346 where the court endorsed damages for the recovery of interest income forgone by diversion of the part of the plaintiff's damages he had to spend to buy a home suitable to accommodate his needs. The insurer explains the rationale being that if this plaintiff did not have to buy the house, he would have earned investment income on the funds and so he had suffered a loss.
4. By way of compromise, the parties have proposed that the sum of $400,000 be submitted as a reasonable additional cost of accommodation.

1. Although the claimant is no longer legally represented, the parties have reached an agreement in the sum of $200,000 for costs and disbursements.
2. I agree this is a fair agreement which includes amounts for the medico-legal reports commissioned on behalf of [BZK].

1. [BZK] is a young woman. She was a very impressive individual in regard to her work environment requiring challenging activities involving long hours. She was highly respected within her industry as someone who was reliable, worked autonomously, possessed a high level of competence, performed well under pressure in a field which is fast paced and requires a high level of output whilst maintaining a detailed level of precision.
2. As set out above, [BZK]'s injuries have completely changed her life forever. She is unlikely to work again. Her social life has changed. Both physically, and from an emotional perspective, she is a different person, having to adjust to a different life that she had envisaged for her future.
3. [BZK] told me she was happy with the proposed settlement and advised me she was impressed and grateful for the insurer's assistance and approach to the agreement.
4. [BZK] understood she is entitled to legal representation but did not wish to engage a lawyer for the purpose of the proposed settlement.
5. She further confirmed she understood her entitlement to an assessment of non-economic loss and agreed the amount of $650,000 is a reasonable amount. She also confirmed she understood her entitlement to past economic loss, superannuation, and paid taxation of statutory benefits. She also understood that the statutory benefits paid to her are to be credited to the insurer and therefore deducted from the agreed settlement amount.
6. She understood the claim for additional travel and accommodation costs.
7. I am satisfied [BZK] is aware that if I approve the proposed settlement, this finalises her entitlements to further common law damages under the Act.
8. [BZK] is aware she is entitled to reasonable future care and treatment for accident-related injuries for the rest of her life.
9. Reviewing each head of damage proposed, I approve as follows.
10. There is no doubt, [BZK] endures pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, severe disfigurement and loss of amenities. The amount for non-economic loss of $650,000 is fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances.
11. I consider the proposed amount for past economic loss and superannuation fair and reasonable which has been calculated as her past loss of earnings with an increase factored and acknowledgement of her promotional opportunities.
12. I have carefully reviewed the calculation of future economic loss, the increase factored into the proposed settlement sum and the allowance for future superannuation, and conclude the amount proposed is just, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
13. Having considered the initial arguments and submissions put forward by [BZK] and the insurer's pragmatic approach to claims for additional travel and accommodation costs, I accept the proposed sums are more than fair, just and reasonable.
14. [BZK] understood the amount proposed for costs and disbursements and acknowledged the insurer has an obligation to previous legal representatives, or otherwise, was a matter between herself and former solicitors.
15. I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is just, fair, and reasonable. The settlement is within the range of likely potential damages assessments if the claim was to proceed to assessment taking into account the nature and extent of the claim, the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by [BZK].
16. I am satisfied [BZK] understands the binding nature of the settlement and that she is precluded from making a further claim for damages arising from the accident. I am satisfied [BZK] is willing to accept the proposed settlement.
17. Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act, I approve the settlement of

[BZK] claim for damages in the sum of 3,500,000. 18. The insurer is to receive a credit for the paid statutory benefits.