1. The proposed settlement in the sum of $146,182 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

1. Ashley Milich (the claimant) suffered injury in a motor accident on 16 September 2023.
2. The claimant is currently aged 20 years, being 18 years old at the time of the accident.
3. On 16 September 2023, the claimant was a rear driver's side passenger in a motor vehicle travelling south along Ulan Road, Turill NSW when it left the southbound lane and collided head-on at high speed with a vehicle travelling in the northbound lane.
4. The claimant lodged an application for damages under common law (the claim) on 16 January 2024.
5. On 16 April 2024, the insurer accepted liability for the claim with no allegation of contributory negligence.
6. Approval of a settlement reached by the parties on 7 August 2025 was declined.
7. The parties participated in preliminary conferences on 8 September 2025, 8 October 2025 and 3 November 2025. The insurer made a revised offer of settlement on 30 October 2025.

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:

"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 Accidents Guidelines."

1. 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, ii 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;

(d) 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 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 or the claim.

1. At the scene of the accident, ambulance officers observed evidence of nosebleed, a large seatbelt contusion across the front of the claimant's neck and throat and a large seatbelt contusion across the claimant's lower abdomen. The claimant complained of lower abdominal pain, neck pain, a painful right elbow and shoulder, together with right hip pain.
2. The claimant was airlifted to Westmead Hospital from the accident scene. At Westmead Hospital, the claimant was diagnosed with a lesser curvature, stomach haematoma, splenic laceration, left transverse process L3 fracture, small pulmonary contusions, and a suspected urinary tract infection.
3. The claimant was admitted to hospital for three days and treated conservatively with repeat imaging and analgaesia before being discharged to the care of his usual GP. The GP was to arrange repeat imaging and referred the claimant to Dr David Burnett, Hepatobiliary Surgeon, at John Hunter Hospital.
4. Dr Tarek Abdellateef, GP, reviewed the claimant on 22 September 2023 and arranged a CT angiogram, abdomen and pelvis and prescribed Panadeine Forte.
5. On 29 September 2023, the claimant complained to Dr Abdellateef about feeling tight in the right arm and cloudy eyes. Dr Abdellateef reported that neurological examination was unremarkable.
6. On 16 October 2023, Dr Shivram Nadkarni, ophthalmic surgeon, reported that the claimant had zonular cataracts that were congenital. The claimant stated that he had not observed any change to his vision post-accident. Dr Nadkarni reported that zonular cataracts are typically non-progressive and unlikely to worsen.
7. Dr Abdellateef cleared the claimant for a return to unrestricted work on 3 November 2023.
8. On 27 November 2023, the plaintiff complained to Dr Abdellateef of a mental breakdown post-accident and the claimant was referred to Ms Kate Walton, psychologist.
9. On 25 September 2024, Ms Walton reported that the claimant had attended eight sessions of psychological counselling with limited engagement. A goal of therapy was to return to driving (the claimant obtained his learner's certificate just two months before the motor accident). The claimant later stated that this was not a relevant goal because he no longer saw the need to drive and was not motivated to drive. Ms Walton opined that the claimant's anxiety around driving may have become too significant and became a barrier to therapy.
10. Ms Walton noted that the claimant had a brother who was employed as a butcher and a sister who works for Aldi.
11. On 18 June 2024, the claimant told Ms Walton that his friend worked at the reject shop and that he would like to work there.
12. On 16 July 2024, the claimant told Ms Walton that he had identified Coles as his best option for finding work.
13. Dr Frank Machart, orthopaedic surgeon, examined the claimant on 24 December 2024 and confirmed the diagnosis of a fracture of the L3 transverse process. Dr Machart expressed the opinion that the orthopaedic injury had symptomatically healed with a minor scoliosis of no functional significance.
14. On 22 May 2025, Dr Timothy Berry, psychiatrist, examined the plaintiff and diagnosed a specific phobia (fear of driving). Dr Berry opined that the claimant may require further psychological therapy in the form of a graded exposure response prevention plan should he decide to resume driving.

1. At the initial preliminary conference, the claimant informed me that his internal injuries had healed and that he no longer suffered from back pain.
2. At the time of his accident, it was his intention to obtain his licence, but he had only driven on a couple of occasions before the accident.
3. He had obtained work at Woolworths, which is located 5 to 6km from his home. He was able to get a lift to work from family members on occasions, otherwise, he would walk to and from work.
4. He understood that at Woolworths, he would be rotated through various positions and that, otherwise, he did not have a clear career goal or any other long-term plans.
5. As to his driving phobia, the claimant said that he felt pressured by his treating psychologists to get his licence by a deadline, but he did not feel ready. He was aware that treatment was available and that the insurer would most likely pay for driving lessons as part of a rehabilitation plan. Nevertheless, he was still reluctant to drive due to his phobia but thought it probable that he might attempt to get his licence by the end of 2026.
6. At this conference, I indicated that I had reservations about the allowance for future economic loss in the sum of $100,000 being appropriate and undertook to give the parties notice if I propose not to approve the settlement.

1. At this conference, the claimant was assisted by his mother. Further information was provided in that the claimant indicated that he had no intention to leave Muswellbrook, where he currently resided, in the near future.
2. He had an interest in computers and was investigating the possibility of completing a study online.
3. Significantly, he said that he may be able to obtain work in the mines near Muswellbrook, where his brother and partner worked, as well as his father. Travel would be difficult in that regard as the bus service in Muswellbrook is limited.
4. Although the claimant was reluctant to undergo further medical assessment, I indicated to the insurer's representative on this occasion that I would consider directing the insurer to apply for a whole person impairment (WPI) assessment, particularly as the claimant was not legally represented.

1. At this conference, I was informed that the insurer had increased its offer for future economic loss by $45,000. The insurer requested a further seven days to put on further submissions to which I agreed. I should add here that at the initial settlement conference, the claimant informed me that he was aware that he was entitled to obtain legal representation but had declined. He also said that he was aware that the proposed settlement would finalise any right to claim damages for non-economic loss and economic loss. However, he understood also that his right to claim for reasonable medical expenses and related assistance would remain.

1. The proposed settlement sum is $146,182. The components of this figure are $937 for past loss of earnings and $145,245 for future loss of earning capacity. In its submissions, the insurer noted that at the time of the accident, the claimant was working as a retail sales assistant earning $209 per fortnight. He was off work for two months and then subsequently found alternate work at Woolworths where he was being trained and was able to work up to 30 hours per week.
2. The proposed settlement allowed for past loss of earnings at the rate of $209 per fortnight for eight weeks, equating to $836. Added to this was an amount of $100.32 for loss of superannuation. A total of $937.
3. Concerning future economic loss, the insurer noted that the claimant completed school after Year 10 without completing his HSC because he had lost a lot of time due to pancreatitis.
4. Dr Berry reported that the claimant had thought about further study but was unsure what he wanted to do and was unsure of his longer-term career path.
5. Orthopaedically and in relation to his internal injuries, the claimant informed Dr Machart that he was symptom-free.
6. Neither Dr Machart nor Dr Berry considered that the claimant had suffered any impairment to his future earning capacity.
7. The allowance made for diminished earning capacity had its foundation in that:

"1. The claimant was learning to drive at the date of accident and is yet to obtain a driver's licence.

1. Dr Berry has diagnosed the claimant with a specific phobia (fear of driving).
2. Dr Berry considers the specific phobia is amenable to further psychological therapy in the form of a graded exposure response prevention plan.
3. The claimant does not have a clear career goal.
4. The claimant has been able to find work that does not involve any need for him to be able to drive.
5. The claimant has suggested that he did not possess a desire to drive when he originally attained his learner's licence.
6. The claimant can travel as a passenger in vehicles."
7. The insurer observed that if the claimant decided to take up employment in the mines at Muswellbrook where members of his family had previously worked, it would cost $300 per week based on travel five days per week. This would amount to $25,245 to travel to the mines by Uber over the next two years less the cost of travel which would be incurred regardless of the motor accident.
8. The insurer submitted that the allowance of $145,245 for future loss of earning capacity to guard against loss from deprivation or impairment of earning capacity and increased travel cost was appropriate. It was noted that this also included loss of superannuation.

1. Consideration of the proposed settlement was delayed whilst the situation concerning social security benefits received by the claimant was clarified. I am now informed that no repayments are sought and that there is no relevant preclusion period.
2. The difficulty with considering the proposed settlement arose from the uncertainty concerning the claimant's future employment if the claimant quickly overcomes the diagnosed phobia preventing him from learning to drive, then any future loss of earnings is likely to be negligible.
3. Psychiatrist Dr Timothy Berry diagnosed the phobia and indicated that the claimant may require further psychological therapy in the form of a graded exposure response prevention plan should he decide to resume driving. In other words, he regarded the claimant's phobia as treatable.
4. The claimant, whom I observed, not to have a robust personality told me that he would probably return to driving, but he was unsure when. He was presently disinterested in learning to drive and was not prepared to undergo further treatment at this point in time.
5. The claimant had been previously treated by Ms Kate Wilson, psychologist with the goal of returning the claimant to driving. The claimant abandoned his treatment in September of 2024 as he regarded it as pointless as he had no intention in returning to driving.
6. I was assisted by the evidence from the claimant's mother. She told me that she thought that the claimant would return to driving, but she did not know when.
7. Both the claimant and his mother were anxious that this matter be finalised, as its ongoing nature was also causing the claimant some anxiety.
8. Having considered all the material available to me, including supplementary submissions made by the insurer, I have decided that the proposed allowance for future loss of earning capacity is within the range of likely potential assessment of damage under this head were the matter to be assessed by the Commission.
9. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the total proposed settlement of $146,182 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.
10. 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.
11. Having considered all the material available, I am satisfied that the proposed settlement should be approved.