1. There were no submissions from the claimant apart from what is contained in the application.
2. The ground raised by the claimant in the application in seeking the exemption is that he wishes to proceed against one or more non-CTP insurer and says that "the matter must be exempted so that it can be added to the proceedings against [Meriton] and [Guardcorp] (employer)".
3. In its submissions, the insurer consented to the application for exemption but submitted that the claimant could have sought a mandatory exemption in that the claim, in the insurer's submission, is of a kind referred to in cl 14(c) of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (Regulation), that is, a claim made against a person other than an insurer.
4. The insurer submitted that the allegations of negligence are likely to overlap but arise from the one accident.

1. Sub-section 7.34(1) of the MAI Act provides that a claim is exempt from a claims assessment in the following circumstances:

(a) the claim is of a kind specified in the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (Regulation) as a claim that is exempt from assessment under this Division, or

(b) the Commission has made a preliminary assessment of the claim and has determined (with the approval of the President) that the claim is not suitable for assessment under this Division (a discretionary exemption).

1. Rule 99 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules) relevantly provides:

"Consideration of discretionary exemption from claims assessment

(1) A claimant or insurer may apply for an exemption from assessment under section 92(1)(b) of the MAC Act or section 7.34(1)(b) of the MAI Act by lodging an application.

(2) In determining whether a claim is not suitable for assessment for the purposes of section 92(1)(b) of the MAC Act or section 7.34(1)(b) of the MAI Act, the Commission must consider the objects of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the PIC Act) and the circumstances of the claim.

(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. According to s 3 of the PIC Act one of the objects of the Act is to enable the Commission to resolve the real issues in proceedings justly, quickly, cost effectively and with as little formality as possible.
2. Section 42(2) of the PIC Act provides that the Commission must seek to give effect to the guiding principle when it exercises any power given to it by the PIC Act or the PIC Rules or when it interprets any provision of the PIC Act or PIC Rules.

1. The insurer submitted that the claim in question would be of a kind specified in cl 14(c) of the Regulation and thus qualifying for a (mandatory) exemption under sub-s 7.34 (1)(a) of the MAI Act. A mandatory exemption can only be made by the Division Head as the President's delegate. The claimant has not made such an application.
2. In any event, I do not agree with the insurer's submission because the claim was made against an insurer (Nominal Defendant) and is therefore not a kind specified in cl 14(c) of the Regulation.

1. An exemption from a claims assessment can only be granted pursuant to sub-s 7.34 (1)(b) of the MAI Act, if I make a preliminary assessment of the claim and determine (with the approval of the President) that the claim is not suitable for assessment by the Commission.
2. According to sub-rule 99 (2) of the PIC Rules, in making the determination, I must consider the objects of the PIC Act and the circumstances of the claim.
3. Without limiting the matters that I could consider, I may also consider the matters referred to in sub-rule 99(3) of the PIC Rules.

1. The claimant has already commenced proceedings against Meriton, a non-CTP insured, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It is likely that the claimant's employer, Guardcorp, will be joined in the proceedings against Meriton.
2. The application satisfies the requirements of sub-rule 99(3)(d) of the PIC Rules.
3. Justice would not be served unless all claims arising out of the circumstances of the same accident, including any cross claims between defendants, could be heard together in the same proceedings. The Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear claims against a non-CTP insurer. Only a Court may hear both CTP and non-CTP claims together.
4. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the claim is not suitable for assessment by the Commission, and it is in the interests of justice to exempt the claim from assessment by the Commission.

1. I determine for the reasons set out above that this claim is not suitable for assessment under s 7.34(1)(b) of the MAI 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 28 January 2026, approved Member Maurice Castagnet's recommendation that the claim is not suitable for assessment.