1. The proposed settlement of $160,000 all inclusive is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

1. Initially Kylie Mackenzie, the claimant, attended with Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA, the insurer's representative at the preliminary conference on 17 February 2026 to seek approval of a damages settlement for the claimant's past and future economic loss. I requested on that occasion that the parties have further discussions.
2. There was a further conference before me on 13 March 2026 to allow further negotiations to proceed. The parties agreed after the current offers were discussed that if negotiations concluded that they were content to have me complete the decision on the papers.
3. The parties appeared both times on video. I could see and hear the parties clearly. The claimant was softly spoken, but given time to formulate her answers these were good conversations.
4. The documentary evidence and submissions in support of the approval are contained in the insurer's application and further submissions.
5. Because the claimant is not legally represented, the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) must approve the proposed settlement following s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).[1]
6. The claimant was aware she was entitled to be legally represented. She told me that she had spoken to a solicitor in Mudgee but he advised her he did not represent claimants in personal injury claims. She did not know anyone else to speak to.

1. Mrs Mackenzie is a woman who has claimed damages as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 13 August 2021.
2. The claimant suffered the following injuries:

bruising and grazes to the right elbow and left leg;

1. The accident occurred at approximately 6:30pm in Mudgee, New South Wales. The claimant says that she had just exited her place of work and was walking across the road when the insured driver struck her. The only available lighting was from the insured vehicle and another driven by a witness.
2. The NSW Police and ambulance attended the scene. The ambulance drove the claimant to Dubbo Base Hospital, where she stayed one night despite her head injury.
3. The insurer's submissions contain a detailed history of the claimant's treatment including referrals for physiotherapy and psychological counselling.
4. The insurer relied on orthopaedic surgeon Dr Raymond Wallace's report dated 10 November 2023 and psychiatrist Dr Wayne Mason's report dated 23 February 2024.
5. In terms of capacity, Dr Wallace reported that the claimant is working full time with no restrictions and confirmed this is in line with his assessment of her capacity. In his opinion the claimant's injuries from the accident had all resolved.
6. Dr Mason reported the claimant attended her examination in work clothing and presenting as not anxious or depressed. In Dr Mason's view the claimant was fully fit to perform full time work. However, he diagnosed that the claimant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder with permanent impairment at 7%, which is significant, but as it is not greater than 10% permanent impairment it also means the claimant cannot receive non-economic loss damages for pain and suffering.
7. The claimant said she had not read his report, but she said she still relives the accident every day including nightmares and anxiety passing through the accident site, which she must deal with frequently.
8. In respect to Dr Wallace's report, she had not read it either but thought that the doctor was rude and abrupt. Her view is that he acted uninterested in what she wanted to say and he would not accept that she still had accident related problems.
9. The claimant confirmed that the reason she had not sought further treatment and had continued to work despite continuing pain was due to financial and time pressure. She said she would have had more treatment but could not afford it after the insurer stopped paying.
10. The claimant told me that she still wears a back brace and elbow brace because those body parts still hurt from the accident. The accident related pain becomes particularly bad when she is doing cleaning work, which were a big part of her childcare roles.
11. She has switched to aged care in the last two years because it is not as hard as childcare and to avoid cleaning. The expectation in aged care is that if an event happens like a person falling, her role is to call for help and reassure the client but not to assist them to get up, which she could not manage.
12. She told me there is less of this type of work available, and it is not as well paid as childcare.
13. In respect to treatment for the injuries and disabilities arising from this accident, I am conscious that this accident arose in the context of the pandemic, where lockdowns were occurring in different places across the country. This impacted on rehabilitation and treatment availability.
14. The transcript of the claimant's interview with the insurer's investigator includes descriptions of the claimant suffering a head injury, having amnesia about the accident before and after, enduring a long wait for an ambulance, but being discharged from hospital only a few hours later in Dubbo. The hospital stay struck me as typical for that period, when access to medical services and doctors' appointments in the regions were stretched.
15. IPAR's rehabilitation coordinator Taylor Schwebel recorded the insurer's assistance to the claimant up to 14 February 2023. I noted that the claimant's neurological condition was monitored with frequent consultation between the treating practitioners and that to her credit the claimant returned to work soon after the accident despite experiencing strong pain, which would be aggravated by her customary work.
16. The claimant also participated in multiple sessions of counselling to deal with her psychological distress from the accident.

1. The insurer's submissions and updated submissions note the NSW Police investigated the circumstances and determined that the insured driver had not been negligent on the criminal standard.
2. The insured driver said she was traveling at the posted speed and had her lights on. Her statement says that she was heading uphill and had taken her foot off the accelerator so that the vehicle slowed as she was approaching the claimant's parked car. The claimant was wearing dark clothing, lack of lighting in the area so that the insured driver could not see the claimant immediately before the incident.
3. The insurer investigated the circumstances of the accident and admitted on 10 November 2023 that its insured driver breached her duty of care and the insurer was liable for damages, but that the claimant's own negligence had contributed 50% to the accident occurring.
4. The insurer relies on the following grounds for alleging that:

(a) the claimant crossed the road when it was unsafe to do so;

(b) the claimant failed to keep a proper lookout;

(c) the claimant failed to ensure her own safety whilst crossing the road, and

(d) the claimant failed to safely cross the road to her vehicle without awareness of approaching traffic.

1. The ambulance report says the claimant could not remember the accident.
2. The investigation report shows this is a challenging fact scenario, where the negligence is not obvious one way or another.
3. The circumstances described in witness Hill's statement shows the claimant had already crossed from the left side of the road heading south to the middle of the lane on his right before he arrived as he saw her shadow from the insured driver's lights on his right.
4. The insurer's investigation, which included Mrs Mackenzie's telephone call with the investigator, demonstrated she was authentic and doing her best to assist the investigator.
5. The claimant is only able to contribute a little due to the amnesia except to confirm that going to her car after work in the dark had happened many times without incident and it was unlikely she was not looking out for traffic properly.
6. The insured driver is also straightforward and authentic in her account recorded in the investigation. The police formed a view that a criminal negligent driving charge against the insured could not be justified based on the state of the evidence.
7. Mrs Mackenzie became emotional talking about the liability issue during this conference. She feels she is being punished more when she is the injured person.
8. It appeared from the manner of the insurer's representative that the insurer understood the claimant's distress about the circumstances of the accident. Further, the claimant acknowledged that the cost and delay of instructing legal representatives to investigate the circumstances of the accident would cause delay and cost that ultimately would not benefit her.

1. The updated submissions include a deed of release where the insurer agrees to settle the claimant's claim for damages $160,000 for economic loss.
2. The insurer's offer is based on the claimant being compensated for $50,000 for past economic loss and $110,000 for future economic loss discounted 50% to total $80,000.
3. There have been statutory payments of $12,392.04 which will be deducted. The claimant would receive $67,607.96.
4. The offer is based on evidence that at the time of the accident, the claimant was employed part-time as a Childcare Educator for Mudgee Little Learners. The claimant's pre-accident payslips showed she was working on average 37.5 hours per week earning $838.87 net.
5. Following the accident, the claimant was certified with no capacity for work.
6. On 7 September 2021, she was certified with 'some' capacity for work and on 23 March 2022, this was upgraded to 35 hours of work which the insurer understood to be the claimant's pre-accident hours.
7. The claimant's taxation returns up to 2024 confirm her income only decreased by $3,809 in the financial year following the accident when compared to the financial year immediately prior to the accident.
8. The claimant alleges that she has switched from working in childcare to aged care due to the accident. She alleges this is because the childcare work reminded her of the accident and there is less manual handling/cleaning in aged care work which allows her to control and lessen the physical pain she experiences as a result of accident-related injuries.
9. I note though that the claimant is only 52 years old and in recent years has mostly worked as a child care work, which was a physically demanding job. She could have at least an additional 15 years working life.
10. Since the earlier teleconference, the claimant has provided further particulars, pre- and post-accident payslips and a taxation return for the financial year ending in 2025.
11. The claimant's most recent payslips from 26 January 2026 to 22 February 2026 indicate the claimant now works between 18-25 hours per week earning approximately $36.49 per hour. This gives an estimated weekly salary of $675.00 net per week.
12. The amount offered is a buffer allowance of approval of approximately $200 per week until retirement. The insurer submits the formulation of its offer is fair just and reasonable in the circumstances.

1. I approve the settlement on the basis that the claimant has had the opportunity to negotiate with the insurer and has obtained a result that it is within the range of possible verdicts she could have obtained if this claim for damages was assessed in the Commission.
2. This is not a matter that could result in a big change in potential damages if the claimant instructed lawyers and contested the liability issue, because that aspect is not decisively in her favour.
3. Noting that, the current offer before being discounted for contributory negligence is within the range to compensate the probable economic loss caused by her accident related disabilities which restrict her choice of employment.
4. I could not give much weight to the independent medical examiners' opinions because they are not current. Also, the claimant was able to demonstrate via the settlement approval process that the claimant's continuing disabilities arising from the accident continued to affect her future work capacity. The claimant's accident related condition persists. I prefer the information that the claimant provided about her work capacity and her willingness to exercise the full extent of her residual earning capacity.
5. The claimant understands that if her condition deteriorates then once this offer is approved it is not possible to seek further compensation for the time away from work.
6. I told the claimant that the offer was within a possible range of damages and that it was an amount that would not be out of place resolving an informal settlement conference with her own legal representation.
7. It was fair, reasonable and just, because the claimant had been given the opportunity to seek legal advice. She has satisfied me that she had the agency to choose not to have legal representation, negotiate with the insurer's lawyers, consider the insurer's offers and judge if it will adequately compensate her.

1. The proposed settlement of $160,000 all-inclusive is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act.

Section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) imposes restrictions on the settlement of a claim for damages. That provision is, relevantly, in the following terms:

"6.23 Restrictions on settlement of claim for damages

(a) ...

(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 the Motor Accident Guidelines."

Clause 7.37 of the Motor Accident Guidelines states as follows:

"7.37 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) (Omitted)

(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, 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."

Procedural Direction MA3 deals with the approval of a damages settlement and describes the process.