1. The prposed settlement in the sum of $427,500 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The insurer is at liberty to deduct the sum of $39,196.73 being for weekly payments of statutory benefits made to or on behalf of the claimant.

1. Benjamin Cornford (the claimant) aged 33 years was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 7 June 2024.
2. The claimant was a driver of a vehicle, which was turning right out of Westward Avenue, Shalvey onto Sedgman Crescent, when the insured vehicle came "speeding down the street" and a collision occurred between the vehicles.
3. At the time of the accident, the claimant was employed as a spray painter for Smitty's Professional Finishes working on a full-time basis and earning $1,177.50 per week.
4. Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance (the insurer) issued a Liability Notice - Benefits After 52 Weeks on 4 March 2025 accepting liability for the payment of statutory benefits after 52 weeks from the date of the motor accident. At that time the insurer determined that the claimant contributed 60% to the accident.
5. The claimant had lodged an application for personal injury benefits on 24 June 2024.
6. On 10 March 2025 the claimant lodged an Application for Damages.
7. On 3 July 2025 the insurer issued a Further Liability Notice - Claim for Damages advising the claimant that it denied liability while investigations were ongoing.
8. On 2 September 2025 the insurer issued a Liability Notice - Claim for Damages advising the claimant that it admitted liability for the claim for damages. The insurer assessed that the claimant had contributed to the accident to the extent of 30%.
9. On 29 October 2025 the insurer determined that the claimant's whole person impairment (WPI) exceeded the 10% threshold.
10. On 11 November 2025 the insurer made an offer of settlement in the amount of $300,000 all inclusive, representing non-economic loss, past economic loss and future economic loss with a reduction of 20% for contributory negligence. That offer was accepted by the claimant by way of a signed settlement agreement on 12 November 2025.
11. As the claimant is not legally represented the proposed settlement requires approval.

1. Restrictions on the settlement of a claim for damages are found in s 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) which is in the following terms.

"6.23 Restrictions on Settlement of Claim for Damages

(a) 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 Act or Motor Accidents guidelines."

1. Clause 7.37 of the Motor Accidents Guidelines sates as follows:

"7.37U 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.

(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 and 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 the claim by an Australian legal practitioner;

(d) The claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement."

1. Procedural Direction MA3 concerns the requirement of the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) to approve the settlement of a claim for damages in circumstances where the claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner, and the process of obtaining the Commission's approval of the settlement sum.

1. In his application for personal injury benefits the claimant alleged cuts to the head and ear, a bump to the leg and a separation of the acromioclavicular joint in the right shoulder. The claimant is right-hand dominant.
2. A detailed summary of the injuries sustained by the claimant is set out in the discharge summary of the Nepean District Hospital dated 7 June 2024. The summary notes that the claimant had an abrasion to the right forehead, and complained of pain to the right shoulder, and right shin. The hospital identified bruising to the right upper chest, left lower abdomen, T4 tenderness on palpation. The claimant underwent a CT brain - C-spine/chest/upper abdomen where no fractures were identified. X-ray of the clavicle noted Rockwood II ACJ injury and the X-ray of the right knee/tibia/fibula did not identify any fracture. There was increased calf swelling in the emergency department. It further noted "popliteal, DP pulses present. Foot warm and well perfused. Full ROM through right knee. Localised pain to site of swelling. Impression: soft tissue injury." The claimant was discharged the same day and referred to his general practitioner (GP) for ongoing care and management and for his right acromioclavicular joint injury, was referred to a Dr Min-Jae Lee for repeat X-ray and management.
3. I have been provided with and have had regard to the clinical notes of Dr Gary Anderson, the claimant's GP, which details his management.
4. Also was available was a discharge report by William Ngo, exercise physiologist dated 19 August 2025. He reported that at his most recent consultation, the claimant demonstrated the capacity to tolerate work pre-injury duties and returned to pre-injury activities such as playing soccer with his son. Mr Ngo prescribed the claimant a home exercise programme, as well as providing education on self-management to support ongoing independence. Mr Ngo noted that the claimant had adhered to his treatment regime and that this had resulted in a successful recovery from his condition. Mr Ngo stated that there were no restrictions impacting the claimant's ability to perform pre-injury duties, and further treatment was no longer necessary in his opinion. The claimant was discharged from physiotherapy on the 19 August 2025.
5. The insurer arranged for the claimant to be examined for medico-legal purposes by Dr Frank Machart, orthopaedic surgeon, who reported on 8 October 2025.
6. At the time of his examination Dr Machart noted that the claimant complained of background ache in the shoulder, evident at night time, and worse when lifting anything or heavy overhead. The claimant was able to do housework but had not returned to riding a pushbike or soccer where he played as a goalkeeper. As to the claimant's prognosis Dr Machart noted relevantly.

"He would benefit from review by an orthopaedic surgeon for stabilisation of the AC joint. It was reasonable to treat it conservatively. There is the possibility that he may require a stabilisation operation."

1. As to the claimant's prognosis Dr Machart opined that there was a limitation on overhead lifting. He thought it was likely that the claimant would improve, but there may remain a permanent limitation on lifting excessively overhead, with or without surgery. As to the need for further surgery Dr Machart opined:

"There will continue to be difficulties lifting the arm overhead, which could potentially resolve with surgical intervention. There will not be an impact on hours at work."

1. At the preliminary conference the claimant informed me that he was having difficulty with his work, had aching in the injured shoulder joint even when talking on the phone. Sleeping was interfered with. There had been occasions when he had been required to leave work early. He confirmed that he had not been able to return to playing as a goalkeeper in soccer and that his leisure time activities were generally restricted.
2. He was continuing with his work but having difficulty with overhead work in particular which is consistent with the opinion expressed by Dr Machart. He continued to keep working as a spray painter which was the only skill that he had having started out in the industry as an apprentice. He very much enjoyed his work.
3. The claimant was reluctant to embark upon surgery at least at the present time.

1. In addition to the insurer's submission suggesting that the appropriate deduction for contributory negligence was 20% I was also provided with a short video depicting a vehicle, said to be the insured vehicle which was making a loud noise and obviously travelling at a high speed. The insurer's submission that a 20% deduction was appropriate was based upon a possible breach by the claimant in failing to give way at a T-intersection. However, the insurer had not been able to obtain a statement from the driver and the investigating police officer had stated that he did not intend breaching the claimant.
2. I had expressed the opinion to the insurer's agent that a breach must also be causative in the circumstances of an accident to substantiate a finding of contributory negligence and I was not satisfied that a deduction for contributory negligence was appropriate. However, in view of the possibility that another member of the Commission might take a different view I indicated that I would entertain a reduction of 10%. Subsequently the insurer agreed that this assessment was appropriate.
3. The amount allowed for non-economic loss by the insurer was $225,000. I should add that in addition to the restriction and pain that the claimant has in his right shoulder he also has a scar on his forehead. After careful consideration I formed the opinion that the allowance of $225,000 for non-economic loss was within the acceptable range likely to be awarded by a member of the Commission.
4. By way of reference to the claimant's actual earnings and the time he had off work the insurer calculated past loss of earnings to be $50,000 inclusive of superannuation. That calculation appears to me to be accurate. I note that to be deducted from the allowance for past economic loss is the sum of $39,196.73 being full payments provided to the claimant by way of weekly statutory benefits.
5. In its original submissions the insurer suggested that the appropriate allowance for future economic loss bearing in mind that the claimant had returned to full-time duties was $100,000. Having considered the medical evidence, particularly the opinion of Dr Machart and the description by the claimant of his restrictions at work it seemed to me that the allowance was inadequate. Having heard from the claimant the insurer requested time to reconsider its offer and eventually the amount allowed for future economic loss was increased by $100,000 to $200,000. In my opinion the allowance for this head of damage is now within the acceptable range.
6. I am satisfied that the total proposed settlement of $427,500 after a deduction of 10% for contributory negligence 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.
7. I am satisfied that the claimant understands that he is entitled to be represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner and does not wish to be represented. I am also satisfied that the claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement sum.
8. I note that the claimant is aware that he is entitled to claim for the cost of ongoing medical treatment and-or domestic assistance it is determined to be reasonably necessary.
9. Having considered all the material available, I am satisfied that the proposed settlement should be approved.