MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999; discretionary exemption application by insurer and claimant; claim involves complex liability, fault and causation; non CTP parties; dual insurance; related work injury damages in District Court; reliance also placed on Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021; other factors considered including length of hearing, number of witnesses to be called, and cross-examination evidence under oath; Held - claim not suitable for assessment at the Personal Injury Commission pursuant to section 92(1)(b); basis not suitable; recommendation subsequently approved by the Division Head, as the President's delegate.

RECOMMENDATIONS - CLAIM NOT SUITABLE FOR ASSESSMENT

1. Craig Peter Buttenshaw (the claimant) was involved in an accident on 29 April 2016.
2. At the time of his injury the claimant was employed with Hedley Electrical Pty Ltd as a leading hand electrician. At a construction site in Tumbi Umbi whilst performing work involving installation of consumer mains at a retirement village, it is alleged during performance of his duties he was required to pull cables through conduits and haul rope either with a winch or manually to draw the cable through. The length of cabling was often 300 metres in length.
3. It is alleged that during the operation of this task a rope was tied to a rear towbar of a motor vehicle and it was proposed that the vehicle assist in pulling the rope as doing it manually was tiring.
4. During this process, the vehicle was used to move and tension the rope and assist in pulling the lengths of cable through. On this occasion the rope suddenly snapped and recoiled striking the claimant causing him to fall and sustain personal injury.
5. Due to the circumstances of this accident, the claimant has entitlements under both Workers Compensation Act 1987, the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the MAC Act).
6. A workers compensation claim was lodged and a work injury damages claim was lodged on 13 October 2016. The workers compensation matters are now subject to NSW District Court proceedings.
7. The insurer has advised there are currently issues in relation to dual insurance.
8. The workers compensation claim is on foot and liability has been accepted.
9. Proceedings are currently on foot in the District Court of NSW for work injury damage. It is likely a s 151Z recovery action will issue in due course due to the circumstances of the accident.
10. After investigation, a claim was brought against the CTP insurer Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA on 19 December 2024. On 1 May 2025 the insurer issued a notice pursuant to

s 81(1) denying liability for the claim. This was based on the fact that the claim was served outside of six months from the date of accident and the explanation for delay provided by the claimant was neither full nor satisfactory. This matter will be ventilated in Court. 11. The claimant submits the claim is not suitable for assessment in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) pursuant to s 92 of the MAC Act. 12. The basis of unsuitability submitted by the claimant pursuant to the rule 99(3) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (Rules). The regulations prescribe grounds to be considered when determining whether a matter is suitable or not. 13. The insurer also seeks the matter be exempted on the basis that the CTP claim and the other related claims should be heard together, given the claims involve the same incident and will involve the same evidence and witnesses. 14. The insurer relies on the following subsections:

(a) r 99(3)(a) Complex legal and factual issues, and

(b) r 99(3)(d) Proceedings involve non-CTP party.

1. The claimant and insurer have now referred the claim to the Commission seeking an exemption from assessment.

1. Section 92(1)(b) of the MAC Act provides that a claim is exempt from assessment if a Member has made a preliminary determination of the claim and has determined, with the approval of the President, that the claim is not suitable for assessment.
2. The Rules at r99(3) prescribes that 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, and

(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 list in r 99(3) is not intended to limit the matters that may be considered by the Commission.
2. Rule 99(2) states the Commission must consider the objects of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (which includes to promote public confidence in the decision-making of the Commission) and the circumstances of the claim. The cost effectiveness of the matter being heard in the District Court is a matter to be considered in this situation, as the competing claims can be heard together with witnesses appearing in the one forum giving evidence once and this is persuasive that costs would be reduced by avoiding duplicated hearings.
3. This matter involves a complexity envisaged by r 99(3) of the Rules set out circumstances in which a claim may be found unsuitable for assessment as follows:

Having reviewed the submissions and information before me, I consider that this matter involves a complexity envisaged by r 99(3) in which a claim may be found unsuitable for assessment. This matter it involves the following issues:

(a) complex legal or factual issues, or complex issues in the assessment of the amount of the claim;

(b) the claim involves issues of liability, including contributory negligence fault or causation, and

(c) parties are seeking to proceed against non-CTP parties and f proceedings in the District Court have commenced.

1. Noting proceedings are already on foot in the District Court of NSW the parties are seeking to join all matters together to be heard in a single forum, with hearing held over a number of days and it is anticipated that experts, medical and other will be called.
2. The current claim is unsuitable for assessment as both related claims should be heard before a court having jurisdiction to hear both cases concurrently so as to ensure that there is no prospect of multiple and possibly contradictory findings.
3. As was observed in Grant v Royal Rehabilitation Centre Sydney, it is necessary to avoid a "multiplicity of litigation which might involve different judicial officers expressing different views regarding the quantum of such damage."
4. I conclude that it would be more efficient and cost effective for all parties if the matter was exempted, to enable all related matter heard together, subpoena to issue, experts to be called to give evidence and be cross examined and liability issues to be tested in the appropriate forum.

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 MAC Act and I recommend to the President that it be exempt from assessment.
2. In accordance with s 7.34(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, the Division Head (Motor Accident Division) as Delegate of the President, on 18 November 2025, approved Member Shana Radnan's recommendation that the claim is not suitable for assessment.