1. The proposed settlement of $95,698 is approved under sub-s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act).
2. Pursuant to s 3.40(1)(b) of the MAI Act, the insurer is entitled to deduct the sum of $36,698 from the settlement sum by way of recovery for funeral and related expenses paid to the claimant under Division 3.3.

1. The motor accident the subject of this claim occurred on 20 December 2023 (the accident).
2. The claimant (Po Tjoe Ng) made a claim for damages pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 following the death of her niece, the late Vivi Wijaya (the deceased), who was fatally injured in the accident (p 4).
3. The deceased was a passenger in the insured motor vehicle when the motor vehicle collided with a tree.
4. Ms Ng makes a claim for compensation to relatives, in her capacity as representative of the Estate of the deceased.
5. Ms Ng, makes the claim on behalf of the deceased's dependents who reside in Indonesia:

(a) Ms Vinny Wijaya, the deceased's younger sister, and

(b) Mrs Laini Ng, the deceased's mother.

1. The deceased was working at the time of the accident as a seasonal picker on a casual employment contract with APG Hire Pty Ltd (APG), on a work and holiday visa on an Indonesian passport (pp 24 and 39).
2. The claimant was 24 years of age at the time of the accident.
3. On 17 January 2024 the claimant made the application for damages (p 10).
4. The insurer wholly admitted liability for the common law claim (p 100).
5. On 8 May 2025 the insurer made an offer of settlement to the claimant comprising of the following amounts:

(a) past financial dependency - $10,220;

(b) future financial dependency - $7,500, and

(c) funeral expenses - $36,698.

The total offer of settlement was $54,418 (the first settlement offer).

1. The first settlement offer was subsequently revised following the initial settlement conference, the revised settlement is identified below.
2. On 30 June 2025 the claimant accepted the first settlement offer and executed an agreement for release and indemnity (pp 96 - 97).
3. The claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner.
   1. The claimant has requested the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) to approve the revised settlement identified below.

1. The accident occurred at 6.30 am (approx) on 20 December 2023.
2. The deceased was a passenger in the insured's motor vehicle, on the Kamilaroi Highway at Curlewis, NSW, when the vehicle left the roadway at speed and collided with a tree.

1. The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of the accident (p 2).
2. At the time of the accident the deceased was employed by APG, as a factory worker at Baiada Poultry in Tamworth.
3. The deceased had arrived in Australia on 5 April 2023 (p 18) and commenced working for APG as a factory worker in or around 4 September 2023 (p 67).
4. The deceased was in receipt of weekly income of $1254.33 (net) (p 6).
5. The deceased had obtained a "Work and Holiday" (Subclass 462) Visa (p 23), which was granted on 15 November 2023 and expired on 5 April 2025.

1. On 5 September 2025 the claimant appeared at the settlement approval conference by MS Teams, an Indonesian interpreter assisted.
2. As identified earlier in the introduction the claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner however, she is aware that she can instruct an Australian Legal Practitioner to act but does not want to do this and has declined to do so.
3. Several questions were asked of the claimant about the deceased, the answers provided are identified below:

(a) the deceased had obtained a bachelor's degree in Informatic Engineering in Indonesia (when the degree was obtained could not be identified), and it was her intention to work in that industry. It was acknowledged that obtaining a job in the relevant field was not easy and that whilst she was looking for that type of work, she could return to her bookkeeping job to support herself. It appears that the deceased was motivated to work in her chosen field, but work was not always available. Ms Ng, acknowledged that she did not know what the deceased's career intentions were but would have pursued a career beyond that of a bookkeeper, if possible;

(b) the trip to Australia, was the deceased's first overseas trip, apparently she had spoken to her parents about extending her working visa in Australia for another year and possibly had obtained an extension of her visa before the accident. The insurer, had not been made aware of this previously in discussions with the claimant;

(c) she was not sure about the deceased's intentions following the expiration of her working visa in Australia, whether extended or not. She possibly would have returned to Indonesia, but wasn't sure;

(d) both of the deceased's parents are not young, her father (Endang Wijaya Ng), was born in 1959 and is aged 66, he is semi-retired and is a sole trader selling groceries and small household items. The deceased's mother (Mrs Ng) was born in 1972 and is aged 53 years, she is a home maker and does not work. Both parents live in the town/village known as Meulaboh, some five hours journey from Medan, where the deceased, was likely to return to work some day, and

(e) the salary for bookkeepers in the past, were no longer the same as they are now higher, due to inflationary pressures and current upward wage movements in Indonesia.

1. Having regard to this additional information and considering matters, which are generally well known about the cultural predisposition of young single Asian women, from countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines, to work in domestic/factory positions overseas in countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and Australia to obtain income to assist their families at home, I was not satisfied that the amount proposed for "Future Financial Dependency" of $7,500 was fair and reasonable.
2. To assist the parties in understanding my reasoning and approach about assessing whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, I identified the following:

(a) the deceased had obtained an Engineering degree, presumably with the purpose of pursuing a paid career in that field of endeavour, namely as an Informatics Engineer;

(b) the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of her death;

(c) the deceased had displayed an adventurous spirit travel to Australia on a working visa;

(d) the deceased had engaged in arduous work as a factory worker and supported her sister (financially to pursue her degree), she was clearly a caring, supportive and loving sister and not afraid of hard manual work if required;

(e) I regarded it as probable that the deceased would seek out a better life afforded by a career in Engineering and not remain as a bookkeeper in Indonesia, possibly overseas and possibly in an Engineering position, affording her an opportunity to support her parents well into their old age (which is often a cultural motivation in Asian countries such as Indonesia);

(f) I considered the base contribution of $10 per week, as submitted in the insurer's submissions in cl 2.18 (pp 84 and 102), as "derisory". I considered a more appropriate sum would be five times the initial sum submitted of $7,500 i.e. $37,500 (rounded up to $40,000), having regard to the following facts/considerations:

(i) the deceased had an Engineering degree;

(ii) the deceased was relatively young at the time of her untimely death;

(iii) the deceased was adventurous as she had travelled to Australia on a working visa;

(iv) the deceased appears to have had a very strong work ethic;

(v) the deceased had been generously supporting her younger sister whilst working in Australia;

(vi) there is a cultural predisposition for Asian children to support their parents where possible;

(vii) the age (identified above) and occupations of the deceased's parents, noting her mother is still relatively young and is a home maker and not working and her father is semi-retired, and

(viii) the very low wage earnings adopted by the insurer (see section 2.12 of the insurer's submissions (p 102), in a semi - skilled occupation of a bookkeeper, which was not a field of endeavour that was the probable career pathway for the deceased, where she had demonstrated she was willing to work overseas and was possibly seeking to her extend her working visa in Australia.

1. The matter was adjourned to another settlement conference for the insurer to reconsider the settlement offer and for the parties to engage in further discussions.

1. On 7 November 2025 the claimant appeared at the adjourned settlement approval conference by MS Teams, an Indonesian interpreter assisted.
2. I granted leave for the insurer to file an amended bundle of documents, which included the executed deed of settlement for the revised settlement offer. The revised bundle of documents when referred to are identified as the ALAD.
3. The insurer, following the 5 September 2025 conference, made a revised offer of settlement dated 15 September 2025 as follows:

(a) past financial dependency - $13,500 (at $150 per week from 20 December 2023 to 15 September 2025 = $13,500);

(b) future financial dependency - $45,500 (as identified in paragraph 26 (f) above);

(c) funeral expenses - $36,698, and

(d) total offer - $95,698 (the revised settlement) (pp 3 - 4 - ALAD).

1. The claimant has accepted the revised settlement and executed a revised deed of settlement dated 20 October 2025 (pp 22 - 23 - ALAD) and requested that the Commission approve the revised settlement.
2. I explained the revised settlement to the claimant and her understanding of the deductions to be made by the insurer from the agreed settlement of $95,698, specifically the sum of $36,698 for funeral and related expenses pursuant to s 3.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act).
3. As identified earlier in the introduction the claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner however, she is aware that she can instruct an Australian Legal Practitioner to act but did not want to do this and has declined to do so.
4. During the conference the claimant was questioned about her understanding of the revised settlement and the deceased's estate's rights under the relevant legislation, that the revised settlement resolves the estate's rights arising from the accident i.e. its finality and whether she was entering the settlement without coercion. I am satisfied by her responses, that she is entering into the settlement of her own free will, with the relevant understanding of its finality.
5. I indicated to the parties that I proposed to approve the revised settlement.

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, 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

(2) A claim for damages cannot be settled unless 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

The Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules)

(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 Act [since repealed];

(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

(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 for settlement approval (the Application) and its supporting documentation including the executed deed of settlement, 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 (pp 3 - 5 and 10 - 13 ALAD), and

(b) an executed settlement deed, which identifies the total amount provided for the settlement and deductions sought to be made from the settlement (pp 3 - 5 and 22 - 23 ALAD).

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 dated 20 October 2025, I need to consider whether:

(a) the amount of the settlement is just, fair and reasonable (appropriateness), and the claimant understands the settlement and its terms and the effect of the settlement in ending his claim for 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 total sum of $95,698.
2. I am satisfied that the revised offer of settlement of $95,698 is a just, fair and reasonable settlement of the claimant's common law claim and within the range of likely potential damages assessment if the claim was to proceed to assessment, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim.

1. I am satisfied the claimant is aware she can seek legal advice but does not wish to do so.
2. I am satisfied the claimant understands the binding nature of the settlement and she will be precluded from making a further claim for damages arising out of the accident.
3. I am satisfied the claimant is willing to accept the proposed settlement.
4. Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act, I approve the settlement of the claimant's claim for damages.

1. The settlement of $95,698 is approved pursuant to sub-s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act.
2. Pursuant to s 3.40(1)(b) of the MAI Act, the insurer is entitled to deduct the sum of $36,698 from the settlement sum by way of recovery for funeral and related expenses paid to the claimant under Division 3.3.