1. On the same day the claimant responded to the insurer by email as follows:

"1- maybe it is my mistake not to explain what is important and usually included in every spraying at my house as the requirement to do pest control is to go into the Roof Void/ attic , and in addition it is not safe for me to do this job due to health reasons as I'm elderly clearing, But also after the MVA it is definitely impossible for me to carry a ladder which is about 7 kg. and climb it and then jump into the roof void through roof duct, for all the reasons mentioned in the certificate of capacity by Dr. Dina Jami , and Dr. Raymond.

Also the job includes spraying inside & outside the house and the Roof Void / attic , and all the fences, trees, and outside upper ceilings, in addition to fill the outside boxes with rodent treatment and the boxes in the garage and roof void.

4- this spraying job is much more harder for me even than collecting dropped tree leaves which already cannot do it as your esteemed office approved it within gardening services.

As we all know we usually find inside & outside the house many kinds of pest, worms, insects, spiders, rodents, which require control and spraying..."

1. The insurer treated the claimant's email as a request for an internal review of its

8 October 2024 decision. On 22 October 2024 an internal reviewer affirmed the insurer's decision to deny liability for the services. The reviewer's reasons for doing so differed from the original decision maker, the internal reviewer finding that the services: were not an "everyday task envisaged under the scheme"; were not "attendant care services" and did not fall within the definition of "treatment and care" in the MAI Act. It is this decision that gave rise to the dispute to be determined in these proceedings. 2. The dispute is not about whether treatment and care provided or to be provided to the claimant is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances or relates to the injury caused by the accident. Consequently, the dispute is not a "medical dispute" as that term is defined and falls to be determined by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) as a miscellaneous claims assessment matter under Sch 2, cl 3(n) of the MAI Act.

1. The proceedings were listed for a preliminary conference on 11 February 2026. Directions were made for the parties to serve updated written submissions, and the insurer was directed to file a joint bundle.
2. The insurer's position at the preliminary conference was that the dispute could be determined on the papers. However, because the claimant objected to the dispute being determined on the papers, the proceedings were listed for hearing.
3. On 2 March 2026 the claimant's solicitors notified the Commission in writing that the claimant agreed "the more appropriate course is for the matter to proceed on the papers" and requested the hearing be vacated. Later that day the insurer confirmed that it consented to the matter being determined on the papers.
4. On 5 March 2026 the directions made on 11 February 2026 were varied and the hearing vacated. The parties were informed the proceedings would be determined on the papers on or after 24 March 2026 without further notice.

1. The parties have had an opportunity to file the evidence they each rely on together with written submissions. Further, the parties agree the proceedings can be determined on the papers.
2. I am satisfied sufficient information is available to allow me to determine the proceedings without holding a formal hearing. Having considered both s 52 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) and Procedural Direction PIC2, I am satisfied the proceedings can be determined on the papers.

1. The entitlement to statutory benefits for treatment and care under Part 3 of the MAI Act is governed by s 3.24. That provision states relevantly:

"3.24 Entitlement to statutory benefits for treatment and care

(1) An injured person is entitled to statutory benefits for the following expenses (treatment and care expenses) incurred in connection with providing treatment and care for the injured person -

(2) No statutory benefits are payable for the cost of treatment and care to the extent that the treatment and care concerned was not reasonable and necessary in the circumstances or did not relate to the injury resulting from the motor accident concerned.

(3) The Motor Accident Guidelines may provide for -

(a) circumstances in which the cost of treatment and care is taken to be reasonable for the purposes of this section, and

(b) circumstances in which treatment and care is taken to be reasonable and necessary for the purposes of subsection (2).

See Part 7 and Schedule 2 for provisions relating to disputes about whether treatment and care, or the cost or treatment and care, provided or to be provided to an injured person is reasonable and necessary."

1. "Treatment and care" are defined in s 1.4. Relevantly, the definition includes "attendant care services". The claimant does not argue the claimed services come within the terms of any of the other limbs of the definition.
2. "Attendant care services" are defined in s 1.4 as "...services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks, and includes (for example) personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance and domestic services."

1. The evidence relied on by the parties is contained in a joint bundle filed by the insurer on

23 March 2026. 2. In his Application for personal injury benefits dated 13 June 2023 the claimant described the circumstances in which the accident occurred as follows:

"I was stopped at a red light, when a car rear-ended me, causing me to hit the car in front of me."

1. The injuries the claimant sustained in the accident were described as: "[c]ervical spine pain, lumbar spine pain radiating into both legs and psychological sequelae and gastrointestinal symptoms when anxious". It is also recorded that the claimant was not working at the time of the accident and was in receipt of the age pension.
2. The claimant relies on his statement dated 7 January 2026. Some of the matters addressed in the statement are really submissions and I have treated them as such[2].
3. The statement addresses the claimant's pre-accident circumstances, the accident and his accident caused injuries and symptoms. The claimant states that he experienced significant neck and back pain, dizziness, and severe anxiety and that these symptoms have continued and worsened over time. At [4] he refers to the diagnosis of his physical injuries and at [6] - [7] he addressed his psychological symptoms.
4. At [8] and [9] the claimant describes various functional restrictions and states that these restrictions "have made it impossible for me to carry out a range of basic domestic activities that I once performed with ease." He states:

"[10] One significant issue I now face is my ability to carry out pest control around my home. Before the accident, I undertook pest control at least twice a year, often more frequently depending on the season.

[11] It involved carrying a ladder, climbing, inspecting corners of the property, applying surface sprays and baits, and clearing out any debris that might attract pests. I never required external help to manage this.

[12] Since the accident, I cannot safely or effectively complete this task. I am physically incapable of lifting or positioning pest control equipment, moving furniture, crouching, or accessing high or low areas where pests typically are.

[13] As a result, my home has become vulnerable to infestation. Pests are now increasingly present, particularly in the kitchen, garage, and garden areas. This is not only unhygienic, but is deeply distressing."

1. The claimant states that pest control is not a luxury or optional service; it is an essential component of maintaining a safe, sanitary, and habitable home. He states that a "pest- infested home" poses risks to his physical health and mental wellbeing.
2. He concludes his statement as follows:

"[20] I performed this task prior to the accident. I do not perform it now only because of my injuries. I am not seeking a benefit I didn't previously manage on my own, I am simply asking for support to maintain the standard of living I had before the accident disrupted my life.

[21] I am currently surviving on the Age Pension. The cost of professional pest control is expensive. The stress of living in a deteriorating environment I cannot physically manage has caused me distress. It is not just a matter of preference; it is a matter of necessity."

1. The services in dispute were to be provided by Zero Bugs Termite & Pest Control (Zero). In a quote dated 1 October 2024 the following description of the services was provided:

"General pest 6 months warranty internal 3 months warranty external Internal spray all skirting boards and dust roof void External Spray perimeter of the house, around the windows, eaves, dust weep holes, fence frame, letter box and rubbish bin

1. The amount of the quote was $460, comprising $240 for the first component of the services and $220 for the rodent treatment.
2. The joint bundle also includes invoices from Olevar Property Maintenance Pty Ltd dated

21 February 2026. These invoices are referred to in the insurer's written submissions dated 23 March 2026 at [4] and relied on in support of its submission that it "has supported domestic assistance services to [the claimant] for some time, both inside and outside the home...".

1. The claimant relies on written submissions dated 13 March 2026. The submissions record that the claimant provided the insurer with a quote for pest control services dated

1 October 2024 in the sum of $460. At [9] he confirms the dispute is about whether the services are "treatment and care" for the purposes of s 3.24 of the MAI Act. 2. The claimant's case is that:

(a) prior to the accident, he routinely performed pest control around his home, at least twice a year;

(b) the pest control involved working with a ladder, lifting equipment, moving furniture and crouching, and

(c) as a result of his injuries, he is now physically incapable of performing these tasks and in order to maintain a safe, sanitary, and habitable home, is compelled to engage the services of a third-party professional.

1. The claimant refers to the definitions of "treatment and care" and "attendant care services" and places reliance on Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Chowdhury [2025] NSWSC 1392 (Chowdhury), in particular at [16].
2. In the claimant's submission, the clearing of gutters described in Chowdhury at [16] is analogous to the pest care services claimed, in the sense that the cleaning of the gutters is not something that is necessarily performed often but is nevertheless performed multiple times a year.
3. The claimant argues that both pest care and the clearing of gutters would also fall within the definition of "home maintenance" because they are necessary to maintain a safe and habitable home.
4. In the claimant's submission the pest control services should be considered "treatment and care" on the basis that it is either an "everyday task" or "home maintenance" or both, and therefore compensable under the MAI Act.

1. I have proceeded on the basis that the following matters addressed in the claimant's statement are submissions rather than evidence:

(a) pest control is not a luxury or optional service; it is an essential component of maintaining a safe, sanitary, and habitable home;[3]

(b) not all care services are performed daily, but may nonetheless be essential;[4]

(c) tasks like lawn mowing, gutter clearing, and pest control are routine periodic duties that ensure a home remains habitable;[5]

(d) these tasks, while not daily, are recurring,[6] and

(e) the Commission has previously accepted services like lawnmowing and pool cleaning "as part of a person's daily living support when the individual is no longer capable of performing them due to accident-related injuries".[7]

1. In its written submissions dated 5 February 2026, the insurer argues that whilst the claimant has stated he would perform the services prior to the accident, he has not "detailed" whether he has the relevant equipment and chemicals required to undertake the services or if he had the required skills.
2. The insurer's position is that the completion of pest control services is not an everyday task and is not a common or ordinary everyday activity. The insurer accepts that for a task to be considered an everyday task it does not have to have been performed every day, such as lawnmowing. However, it argues that consideration should be given to the frequency of the task. The insurer "points out" that pest control services are generally undertaken on an annual basis.
3. At [11] the insurer refers to a number of decisions of the Commission in which "the issue of 'everyday tasks' has been explored". Each of these decisions turned on its own facts and pre-dated Chowdhury.
4. The insurer submits that the services are not "treatment and care" as defined in s 1.4 and consequently it is not liable under s 3.24 to pay for the services.

1. In its written submissions dated 23 March 2026 the insurer argues that "whilst the submissions provided by the [c]laimant's solicitor refer to one case (Chowdhury), they did not provide a lot of detail to assist the parties in exploring, in any depth, the nature of the task allegedly performed by [the claimant] prior to the accident."
2. At [3] the insurer identified the following matters it submits "would have been helpful to the parties yet [remain] unclear":

(a) why the claimant performed "such services" on his home several times a year?

(b) whether the claimant had any training in undertaking pest control services?

(c) whether the claimant had any specialist equipment for undertaking the pest control services?

(d) if so, from where did he purchase the equipment?

(e) from where did the claimant purchase the chemicals required to undertake the pest control services?

1. The insurer argues it is "common practice" for pest control services to be performed on an annual basis, and submits that the claimant's submissions do not address why the claimant's home requires pest control on a more than annual basis, noting that the home is not near bushland, does not have high density gardens, and is relatively modern and in good condition.
2. At [4] the insurer records that it has "supported domestic assistance services to [the claimant] for some time, both inside and outside the home", and references the invoices from Olevar Property Maintenance Pty Ltd dated 21 February 2026. It is stated that the insurer is "also supporting" gardening services, including sweeping, weeding, mowing the lawn, grass trimming and waste removal.
3. The insurer does not accept the claimant's property is susceptible to infestation "more than any other suburban home". It argues that the claimant has not provided any evidence that his home is infested with pests, as alleged in his statement.
4. At [5] the insurer describes the claimant's property and includes both a photograph of the front of the property and a floorplan of the property, both said to have been "taken from" realestate.com.au.

1. In addition to its submission that "remarks made by his Honour [McHugh JA] in obiter are not binding" the insurer argues that Chowdhury supports its position that:

(a) "attendant care services" should be given its ordinary English meaning;

(b) the purpose of s 3.24(1) is to secure assistance to injured persons with everyday tasks in and around the home;

(c) pest control services "would not fit this definition, as it is generally a task which occurs on an annual basis", and

(d) even if the definition of everyday tasks was expanded to include home maintenance, pest control should not be considered as home maintenance "in any regard".

1. The insurer notes that "aged care services supported by the Federal Government" specifically exclude pest control, referring to the exclusion of "professional repair work, such as pest extermination or installing a cabinet". The submissions include a link to https://www.myagedcare.gov.au/aged-care-services/home-maintenance-and-repairs.
2. The insurer does not explain how or why the exclusion of pest control services "by the Federal Government", in the context of aged care services, is relevant to a determination about whether the claimed services are "treatment and care" for the purposes of the MAI Act.
3. The insurer reiterates it submission that pest control services are not "treatment and care" as defined in s 1.4 of the MAI Act, and argues the services are not home maintenance, but rather a specialised task. The insurer submits that it is therefore not liable under s 3.24 of the MAI Act to pay for the services.

1. The primary source of evidence from which findings can be made is the claimant's statement dated 7 January 2026. The claimant has not given oral evidence and was not required for cross examination. There is no medical evidence before me.
2. In addition to his statement, I have taken into consideration the matters referred to by the claimant in his email to the insurer dated 8 October 2024, including that:

(a) pest control involved going into the roof void/attic and required him to carry a 7kg ladder, climb it, and jump into the roof void through the roof duct, and

(b) "the job" includes spraying inside and outside the house and the roof void/attic, and all the fences, trees, and outside upper ceilings and filling the outside boxes with rodent treatment and the boxes in the garage and roof void.

1. There is no dispute the claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 29 May 2023. In circumstances where the insurer has accepted liability for the claim and has been paying him statutory benefits[8] I infer there is no dispute the claimant suffered injury as a result of the accident[9] or that he has required treatment and care as a result of his accident caused injuries.[10]
2. I accept the claimant's evidence he experiences physical and psychological symptoms as a result of the accident and that his injuries have given rise to functional limitations.
3. I find that:

(a) prior to the accident the claimant carried out pest control around his home at least twice a year;

(b) the pest control undertaken by the claimant prior to the accident involved the following tasks: entering the roof/attic, carrying a ladder, climbing, inspecting corners of the property, applying surface sprays inside and outside his home, laying baits, and clearing out debris that might attract pests;

(c) prior to the accident the claimant never required external help to manage this work;

(d) the claimant now requires assistance with pest control tasks, and

(e) post-accident pests are increasingly present in the claimant's home, particularly in the kitchen, garage, and garden areas.

1. While the claimant stated that he carried out pest control around his home "often more frequently [than twice a year] depending on the season" the evidence does not allow me to make a finding on the probabilities as to how "more frequently" he undertook those tasks.

1. The claimant's case is that the insurer has a liability under s 3.24 of the MAI Act to pay the cost of the services because they are expenses incurred in connection with providing treatment and care for him. As stated by McHugh JA in Chowdhury at [83]:

"...The evident purpose of s 3.24(1) is, as the definition of "attendant care services" makes clear, to secure assistance to injured persons with everyday tasks, including in and around the home..."

1. The claimant is only entitled to statutory benefits for the claimed expenses if the services fall within one of the categories listed in the definition of "treatment and care". This is because, as explained in Chowdhury at [12], the use of the word "means" in the definition of "treatment and care" indicates that it is exhaustive.
2. The claimant argues the services fall within the category "attendant care services". Accordingly, the statutory question is whether the services come within the definition of "attendant care services": Chowdhury at [26].
3. McHugh JA said as follows in Chowdhury with respect to "attendant care services":

"[16] It might be observed of the definition of 'attendant care services':

(1) The words before the first comma contain the main operative part of the definition (in the sense of stating the meaning of the defined term).

(2) Those words have a purposive dimension: 'services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks'. The 'service' may or may not consist of directly performing the identified 'task: the' language of 'assistance' would include but is not limited to that. Moreover, it is the task' which is described as 'everyday', not the 'service'.

(3) The words after the first comma are capable of more than one reading. On what is the most natural reading, the words 'and includes ...' identify four types of services that are taken to be 'attendant care services'. The words after the first comma bring within the term 'attendant care services' services that do not necessarily fall within the natural and ordinary meaning of the words before the first comma (i.e., that do not necessarily, as a matter of ordinary English, involve assistance with 'everyday tasks'): see McTye v Ching Yu Chang by his tutor Leo Alexander Birch [2025] NSWCA 3 at [32]- [33]. On this reading, if the 'task' is clearing the gutters of a claimant's three-storey house (where that task requires use of a harness attached to a point on the roof), that may not readily be seen as an 'everyday task'. But it may well be 'home maintenance', and come within the definition on that basis.

(4) On another reading, the four types of services identified after the first comma (which are described as 'example[s]') are all 'attendant care services' because they fall within the words before the first comma. On that reading, the types of services identified after the first comma assist in understanding the meaning of the preceding words, and in particular the scope of 'everyday tasks'. Thus, if clearing the gutters of a three-storey house is 'home maintenance', that would suggest a broad understanding of what constitutes an everyday task.

(5) In any event, it is uncontroversial that "attendant care services" include services which fall outside the four examples after the comma. All that is required is that the service meet the description before the comma, namely, that it aims to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks."

"[20] Defined terms are not to be construed in the abstract. The orthodox approach is to read the words of a definition into the operative provision which employs it, and then to construe the substantive enactment in its context and bearing in mind its purpose: see Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v Sako (2025) 116 NSWLR 422; [2025] NSWCA 12 at [43]. However, because of the nested definitions here and the way in which they are expressed, including the use of examples, it is not straightforward to transpose the definitions into the operative provision, s 3.24(1). By isolating the immediately relevant language from what are otherwise lengthy definitions of both 'attendant care services' and, especially, 'treatment and care', that exercise risks omitting other parts of those definitions which may have contextual significance.

Bearing that in mind, and attempting to read the immediately relevant words of the definitions into the substantive enactment with maximum fidelity to the statutory language, the operative part of s 3.24(1) is relevantly to the following effect:

An injured person is entitled to statutory benefits for the following expenses ... incurred in connection with providing [services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks ... includ[ing] ... domestic services] for the injured person -

[21] On its face, that language - especially 'everyday tasks' - states a potentially very broad entitlement."

1. The previous decisions of the Commission referred to by the insurer in its written submissions dated 5 February 2026 pre-date Chowdhury, were determined on their own facts, and illustrate the point made by McHugh JA in Chowdhury at [26] that, since each case will be different, the application of the provision will involve an interpretative element on each occasion and that:

"[t]here may also be reasons of policy supporting a construction of the statutory language that allows a degree of flexibility, constrained by notions of reasonableness, to address the real needs of injured people."

1. Because it is the "task" which is described as "everyday", not the "service", the terms of the quote from Zero for which the claimant seeks payment are relevant but not determinative. However, I consider the services described in the quote to be generally consistent with the pest control tasks carried out by the claimant before the accident.
2. Although he did not specifically refer to "rodent treatment" in his statement, the claimant did refer to it in his 8 October 2024 email to the insurer. He did not, however, provide further details about what "rodent treatment" entailed. I infer that it involved laying bates.
3. I have found that prior to the accident the claimant performed the pest control tasks at least twice a year. They were not performed daily, weekly, or even monthly. However, the frequency at which the tasks in question were performed is not determinative. The insurer accepts that to be an "everyday task" does not require the task to be performed every day.[11]
4. One might have thought that some of the pest control tasks carried out by the claimant before the accident may have involved a degree of specialist skill or knowledge. Nonetheless, I have found he undertook these tasks.
5. The definition of "attendant care services" refers to "services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks". The question arises: is the term "everyday" to be construed by reference to the claimant in question or the person on the Lilyfield tram? For this claimant, who performed the pest control tasks before the accident, those tasks may more readily be considered "everyday". For many others, the same probably could not be said.
6. In my view, Chowdhury, in particular at [26], supports a conclusion that when determining whether a particular task or set of related tasks are "everyday tasks" it is appropriate to consider the subjective circumstances of the claimant in question.

1. The claimed pest control services do not sit comfortably with other services that are readily recognised as being "domestic services", namely services provided in and about the home for ordinary household purposes, such as cooking, cleaning and washing. Nor are they akin to feeding and watering pets or changing their litter.
2. While recognising that references by McHugh JA to clearing the gutters[12] was obiter, I cannot decern a material difference between clearing gutters and the pest control tasks performed by the claimant. Both are carried out to maintain the habitability and upkeep of a home.
3. I find the pest control tasks carried out by the claimant pre-accident related to the maintenance and upkeep of his home and fall within the ordinary meaning of "home maintenance".
4. I find the claimed services aim to provide assistance to the claimant with "home maintenance".
5. It is uncontroversial that "attendant care services" include services which fall outside the four examples after the comma. All that is required is that the service meet the description before the comma, namely, that it aims to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks[13].
6. It is to be born in mind that "everyday tasks" are "wide words".[14] If not "home maintenance", because the pest control tasks performed by the claimant prior to the accident were, for him, tasks he regularly performed for the upkeep of his home, they are "everyday tasks". The services for which the claimant has claimed compensation aim to provide assistance to him with those tasks.
7. It follows that the services come within the definition of "attendant care services" and are compensable under s 3.24 because they are "treatment and care" expenses.
8. Whether the services are reasonable and necessary in the circumstances or relate to the injury resulting from the accident are medical assessment matters and are not for me to determine.

1. Neither party provided submissions with respect to costs.
2. The insurer is to pay the claimant's reasonable and necessary costs in accordance with the regulations.

[1] Insurer's written submissions dated 5 February 2026 at [2].

[2] See claimant's statement at [14], [17] - [19].

[8] See insurer's written submissions dated 5 February 2026 at [2] and 23 March 2026 at [4].

[11] Insurer's submissions dated 5 February 2026 at [12].