1. Bilal Bajouri was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 10 November 2017. He was born in 1995.
2. The solicitor for the claimant has now referred the claim to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) seeking an exemption from assessment.
3. The solicitor for the claimant submits the matter is not suitable for assessment and seeks an exemption pursuant to s 92(1)(b) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (1999 Act) and cl 99 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the Rules).
4. The claimant was the driver of a motor vehicle injured in an accident on 10 November 2017 at the intersection at Station Rd and Powers Rd, Seven Hills. He sustained physical and psychological injuries.
5. It is submitted the matter involves allegations of inconsistent evidence, surveillance, criminal records and economic loss claims that are unusually complex.
6. The solicitor for the insurer does not oppose this application for discretionary exemption.
7. Clause 99 of the Rules sets out the circumstances where discretionary exemption may be sought which includes the following

"(3) Without limiting the matters that may be considered, the Commission may consider the following,

(a) Whether the claim involves complex legal or factual issues or complex issues in the assessment of the amount of the claim.

(b) whether the claim involves issues of liability including contributory negligence fault or causation.

(c) whether a claimant or witness considered by the Commission to be a material witness resides outside the state.

(d) Whether a claimant or insurer seeks to proceed against one or more non-CTP parties

(e) whether the insurer alleges that a person has made a false or misleading statement in a material particular in relation to the injuries, loss or damage sustained by the claimant in the accident giving rise to the claim."

1. The solicitor for the claimant submits this is an appropriate case for discretionary exemption based upon clause 99 (3) (a) above. It is noted the Guidelines apply to determined transitional matters (existing matters not yet resolved under the old Claims Assessment and Resolution Service) for the Personal Injury Commission.
2. I note this matter was previously referred to me and on 14 March 2022, I found the claimant in breach of his obligations under s 85 of the 1999 Act. At that time, I determined the claimant was not cooperating by attending any further medical examinations arranged by the insurer and I dismissed the claimant's application for general assessment pursuant to cl.13.1.13 of the Claims Assessment Guidelines
3. I held the initial teleconference in this matter on 28 November 2025, and I advised the parties I required further documentation regarding the claimant's criminal history. It appeared from the documentation lodged with the application, the claimant breached his bond and may have been incarcerated for a period. I directed the insurer to issue a Directions for Production upon the Department of Corrective Services and NSW Police. Documentation was produced in response to the said Directions for Production.
4. The claimant has a lengthy criminal history, and I note the following:

(a) in 2021 he was arrested for breach of bail at the Parramatta Local Court.

(b) in 2021 at the Liverpool Local Court, he was charged with stalk/intimidate, fear physical etc harm (domestic), common assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which were withdrawn.

(c) in 2022 at the Parramatta Local Court, he was arrested for breach of bail.

(d) in 2022 at the Sutherland Local Court he was fined for contravene, prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic};

(e) in 2022 at the Liverpool Local Court charged with common assault resulting in a conviction and to be supervised by community corrections service.

(f) in 2022 at the Parramatta Local Court charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence proved warrant revoked annulment granted, and

(g) in 2023 at the Parramatta Local Court charged with contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic) offence proved.

1. The solicitor for the claimant submits the claimant's evidence should be taken in court with the benefit of the rules of evidence and a full transcript along with an oath or affirmation. Furthermore, the court can deal formally with contempt of court and abuse of power and the penalty for perjury or making false statements under oath. The insurer should also have an unfettered right of cross examination subject to the rules of evidence.
2. The first relevant consideration is under sub clause 99 (2) of the PIC Rules. When determining whether a claim is not suitable for assessment, the Commission must consider the objects of the PIC Act and the circumstances of the claim. Section 3 of the PIC Act which refers to Objects of the MAI Act enjoins the Commission to be accessible, professional and responsive to the needs of all its users, encourages early dispute resolution, and resolves the real issues in proceedings justly, quickly, cost effectively and with as little formality as possible.
3. I am satisfied based upon the claimant's extensive criminal history and also upon the submissions in relation to regulation 3(a) , that I should recommend the matter is not suitable for assessment and I should recommend a discretionary exemption to the President of the Commission.

1. Having made a preliminary assessment of the claim, I determine for the reasons set out above that this claim is not suitable for assessment under s 92(1)(b) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 and the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 and I recommend to the President that it be exempt from assessment.