1. The insurer admits it owed a duty of care to the claimant, breached that duty of care, and the claimant sustained injury, loss and damage because of that breach of duty.
2. Under sub-sections 7.36 (3) and 7.36 (4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act), I assess the amount of damages for this claim as $2,338,166.87.
3. The amount of the claimant's costs, taking into account the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim, assessed in accordance with the Act is $125,431.90 inclusive of GST.

4.The insurer is to have credit The insurer is to have credit for statutory weekly payments made pursuant to s 3.40 in the sum of $77,162.

1. On 12 August 2023 at approximately 7.40am Sanjiv Midha (the claimant) was a 59-year-old cyclist travelling along Narrabeen Park Parade, near the corner of Cook Terrace when the insured vehicle pulled away from the kerb and collided with the claimant.
2. Police and ambulance attended and the claimant was conveyed to Royal North Shore Hospital. The insurer admitted liability on 8 April 2024.
3. An assessment conference was conducted in this matter on 2 October 2025 in Sydney.
4. The matters requiring assessment are limited to non-economic loss, past and future economic loss.
5. In agreement at the conclusion of the assessment conference were the following:

(a) statutory payments amounted to the sum of $77,162, and

(b) income tax paid in the sum of $26,697.

1. The claimant was questioned at the assessment conference and further submissions were made by the parties.
2. The claimant submitted he has suffered significant injuries as specified:

(a) fracture of C7 cervical spine;

(b) zygomatic fracture;

(c) nasal fracture;

(d) traumatic cranial subarachnoid haemorrhage;

(e) upper lip degloving;

(f) stellate lacerations to the mouth/cheeks;

(g) septum fracture;

(h) deviated septum;

(i) dental injury resulting in dental fragments;

(j) C7/T1 anterior longitudinal ligament disruption;

(k) left distal radius fracture;

(l) C7/T1 disc bulge;

(m) general soft tissue damage;

(n) shock, and

(o) post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. The claimant in submissions submitted that he also suffered from ongoing disabilities which include:

(a) ongoing chronic pain and stiffness in the neck and into the shoulders;

(b) reduced range of movement in the neck;

(c) reduced range of movement in the left and right shoulder;

(d) reduced range of motion in the left wrist;

(e) inability to sit for longer than 30 minutes at a time due to ongoing neck pain;

(f) inability to drive for longer than 30 minutes at a time due to ongoing neck pain;

(g) ongoing chronic pain in the upper back;

(h) significant tension headaches approximately two to three times per week;

(i) stiffness and discomfort affecting the thoracic spine;

(j) stiffness and discomfort affecting the left wrist;

(k) left wrist pain;

(l) intermittent pins and needles and numbness affecting the right and left upper limbs and lower limbs;

(m) altered sensation, stiffness, and pain in both lips;

(n) area of numbness over the vermillion border of the upper lip;

(o) difficulty with chewing food and pronouncing words;

(p) loss of confidence in the ability to speak effectively in a vocational/occupational environment;

(q) loss of smell;

(r) increased sensitivity to hot and cold food in the teeth;

(s) significant residual scarring over the upper lip and right cheek;

(t) loss of sleep as a result of the pain;

(u) pervasive fatigue;

(v) difficulty concentrating throughout the day as a result of poor sleep;

(w) impaired ability to travel due to damages sinuses, and

(x) increased anxiety.

1. Claimant's initial submissions were dated 8 May 2025 and the insurer's dated 2 June 2025. There were further written submission of the claimant dated 24 September 2025.
2. The parties provided a joint bundle of documents containing 1,108 pages as described in the index of documents at pages 1 to 3 of the bundle. All documents have been read and considered in the making of these reasons.
3. Summary of the quantum of damages at the commencement of the assessment conference:

1. The claimant was involved in an extremely significant accident. He was attended to by ambulance personnel and conveyed to Royal North Shore Hospital (RNSH). Upon presentation to RNSH, the claimant underwent extensive imaging studies and was diagnosed with multiple traumatic injuries, including:

(a) an acute depressed frontal bone fracture (skull fracture), with an associated small subarachnoid haemorrhage;

(b) an acute fracture to the nasal bones (fractured nose);

(c) deep lacerations affecting the upper lip and lower lip, as well as multiple fractured teeth;

(d) multiple facial abrasions;

(e) an acute anteroinferior C7 vertebral body fracture with an associated disruption of the anterior longitudinal ligament, and

(f) an acute displaced left distal radius fracture.

1. The claimant was hospitalised at RNSH for four nights and underwent multiple surgical operations, including:

(a) washout and repair of facial abrasions and lacerations on the 14 August 2023;

(b) a closed reduction of nasal bones on 14 August 2023;

(c) an open reduction and internal fixation of left distal radius fracture on

14 August 2023, and

(d) immobilisation of cervical fractures with hard halo collar for an extended period of time.

1. The claimant attended Sailor Bay Dentistry on 1 September 2023 and dentist Bradley Moore advised that the claimant had broken teeth 21, 22, and 23 in the subject accident. Mr Moore noted that at the time of the appointment, the claimant was in a neck brace and had sustained significant facial trauma, including extensive haematoma and lacerations to the upper lip.
2. The treating dentist, advised that due to the nature of the trauma, there was a substantial risk that the affected teeth may lose vitality either in the short or longer term, potentially requiring future endodontic treatment. Given the ongoing inflammation of the upper lip and the claimant's restricted jaw movement only conservative treatment could be performed at the time.
3. The claimant attended Nathan Hartin, spinal specialist on 20 September 2023. Dr Hartin explained that the claimant had sustained a very significant hyperextension injury which disrupted the anterior longitudinal ligament, particularly between C5 and C7 and displaced bone fragment on the anteroinferior aspect of the C7 vertebral body.
4. The claimant's left wrist remained immobilised in a cast for one month, followed by a removable splint for a further two months. The cervical collar was required continuously until November 2023.
5. A Certificate of Capacity dated 6 October 2023 assessed the claimant as having no capacity for any work, and listed the injuries as:

"neck fractures + skull/facial fractures + subarachnoid bleed +forearm fracture."

1. The reports of Dr Richard Atkinson set out from a treating perspective that the disfigurement does not have treating option that can improve matters.
2. On 24 May 2024, Dr Uthum Dias, occupational physician, examined the claimant on

(a) recurrent headaches, difficulty concentrating and fatigue, an associated visible forehead deformity, secondary to an acute blunt trauma head injury with an associated depressed frontal bone skull fracture and associated small subarachnoid haemorrhage;

(b) partial loss of sense of smell, secondary to an acute nasal bone fracture;

(c) multiple significant facial lacerations/abrasions, most noticeably affecting his upper lip, lower lip, and right maxillary region. Residual scarring, stiffness of both lips, difficulties with speech and difficulties with chewing, as well as sensory loss in the distribution of the cutaneous branches of the maxillary nerve over his upper lip;

(d) multiple fractured teeth necessitating multiple dental surgeries;

(e) chronic cervical spine pain, stiffness and discomfort, with an associated loss of range of movement of both shoulders, secondary to an acute hyperextension injury with an associated C7 anteroinferior vertebral body fracture and an associated C7/T1 anterior longitudinal ligament disruption;

(f) chronic non-specific thoracic spine pain, stiffness and discomfort secondary to an acute musculoligamentous strain, and

(g) chronic left wrist pain, stiffness and discomfort, secondary to an acute distal radius fracture.

1. Dr Mitchell, physician, examined the claimant on behalf of Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA and provided a report dated 13 August 2024. He concluded and noted the following:

(a) ongoing pain in the neck;

(b) fracture of the anteroinferior aspect of C7 body;

(c) facial fractures, including a nasal fracture;

(d) dental injuries, and

(e) fractured left wrist.

1. Dr Nigel Curtis, oral and maxillofacial surgeon, examined the claimant on a joint basis on

11 February 2025. He assessed a whole person impairment (WPI) of 15% and made the following notes and conclusions:

(a) a traumatic brain injury;

(b) an injury to his cervical spine in the C7 region plus a fracture of his left radius and multiple abrasions;

(c) significant orofacial injuries including a fracture of the frontal bone, displaced fracture of the nose, an undisplaced [sic] fracture to the zygoma and maxillary regions, and

(d) a degloving injury of the upper lip region and also some injuries to the 21, 22 and 23 teeth.

1. Associate Professor Michael Robertson, psychiatrist, examined the claimant on behalf of Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA on 13 February 2025. He considered that the claimant had sustained post-traumatic stress disorder causally related to the subject accident and required active treatment.
2. Dr O'Neill, neurologist, examined the claimant and recorded his findings in the report dated 21 February 2025. He noted and concluded the following:

(a) a closed head injury;

(b) a fracture of the C7 vertebral body, a fracture of the left radius, together with dental injuries and soft tissue injuries to the face and limbs;

(c) residual impairment of taste and smell;

(d) the fracture at C7 has healed with conservative management but Mr Midha has been left with a restricted and asymmetric range of neck movement, and

(e) scar across upper lip associated with persisting upper lip stiffness and altered sensation.

1. The insurer relied on the records of treater Dr Richard Atkinson:

(a) on 17 October 2023, reported eight to nine weeks post-left distal radius fracture fixation and repair of upper laceration almost full range of motion in wrist, very slight restriction in flexion. Scar healing well with some slight sensitivity. Recommended to start to reintegrate hand into normal day to day life in gradual fashion;

(b) on 6 December 2023, progressing exceptionally well with hand therapy with full range of motion within wrist and minimal pain. Can continue with normal activity with left hand, trying to reintroduce this to day-to-day activity as much as spinal injury will allow;

(c) on 31 January 2024, progressed well with improving range of motion and essentially normal function;

(d) 22 March 2024, removal of left radial distal plate and screws;

(e) 2 April 2024 no issues post-surgery. Well controlled pain. Continue with gentle active range of motion and limit exercise and heavy lifting for next few weeks, and

(f) on 21 January 2025, he reports the claimant has a subtle asymmetry of his upper lip with slight visible scarring. He is conscious of the scars. The claimant is fit for pre-injury duties.

1. The insurer also relied on the report of Dr Robin Mitchell dated 13 August 2024 and highlighted the following on examination:

(a) well healed scarring over upper lip;

(b) reduced range of motion in neck - 3/4 range for flexion and ½ for extension;

(c) normal range thoracic and lumbar spine;

(d) normal healing of C7 fracture of anterior aspect;

(e) facial fractures, dental fractures healing;

(f) left wrist fracture which had made good recovery after open fixation and reduction;

(g) prognosis- reasonably good providing further aggravating activities and postures are avoided;

(h) capacity for work that would avoid aggravation of his symptoms and able to work full-time. His future capacity for work should not be affected for the kind of work he is currently looking for, and

(i) disputed the opinion of Dr Dias on shoulder and thoracic impairment as the claimant reported to him he no longer had any problem of pain to shoulders or thoracic spine.

1. As to psychological injuries the insurer referred to the report of Associate Professor Robertson dated 13 February 2025 where the claimant had reported psychological symptoms of:

(a) flashbacks /nightmares;

(b) sleep disturbance and insomnia;

(c) dysphoric with appearance, job loss and inability to cycle long distance;

(d) hyperarousal including irritability, exaggerated startle reflex and difficulty settling;

(e) hypervigilant with family's safety /cautious driver;

(f) fatigued, forgetful with reduced mental flexibility;

(g) ability to perform work related duties leading to his termination of employment;

(h) social interaction impaired by inability to ride bicycle and loss of employment;

(i) mild impairment of concentration and short-term memory with fatiguability which improves with time, and

(j) claimant job searching and hoped to return to duties consistent with his skills training and experience.

1. Assistant Professor Robertson considered the claimant's prognosis reasonable if he could secure employment. There was a likely to be a "naturalistic regression" of his symptoms and ongoing psychological treatment was recommended.
2. There were no specific restrictions to his duties necessitated from a psychiatric perspective and he was diagnosed with 5% WPI.
3. Dr Oneil neurologist - provided a joint report dated 21 February 2025 noted:

(a) closed head injury - skull fracture recovered well;

(b) residual impairments of smell and taste - 3% WPI;

(c) intermittent sensory symptoms of upper limb - no clear cause;

(d) cervical physiotherapy to continue for a further six months, and

(e) may require carpal tunnel decompression.

1. Dr Curtis oral and maxillofacial surgeon - provided a joint report dated 11 February 2025 noted:

(a) orofacial injuries including fracture of frontal bone, displace fracture of the nose, undisplaced fracture to the zygoma and maxillary regions plus a degloving injury of the upper lip region and teeth injury;

(b) facial disfigurement with the dent in the frontal bone region and fracture of nose with profound scarring of the upper lip;

(c) further treatment could include surgery to repair skull fracture, laser nerve stimulation for upper lip and removal of lump of scar tissue from the right lower lip, and

(d) WPI assessed at 15% with 7% for facial scarring, 4% for loss of sensation to upper lip and 4% for reduced ability to chew hard foods.

1. I am satisfied the claimant has sustained significant physical injuries that include both physical injuries and psychological injuries:

(a) fracture of C7 cervical spine;

(b) zygomatic fracture;

(c) nasal fracture;

(d) traumatic cranial subarachnoid haemorrhage;

(e) upper lip degloving;

(f) stellate lacerations to the mouth/cheeks;

(g) septum fracture;

(h) deviated septum;

(i) dental injury resulting in dental fragments;

(j) C7/T1 anterior longitudinal ligament disruption;

(k) left distal radius fracture;

(l) C7/T1 disc bulge;

(m) general soft tissue damage;

(n) shock, and

(o) post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. At the time of assessment whilst some of the fractures he suffered have healed he continues to experience pain and suffering from both physical and psychological injuries as described above.

1. The claimant sought the sum of $475,000 for non-economic loss.
2. In written submission the claimant argued that the insurer has communicated statutory notices relying on the decisions such as AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Wade [2025] NSWPIC 25 (Wade), and AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Wilkes [2024] NSWPIC 526 (Wilkes) - the claimants were aged 62 and 66 respectively.
3. The insurer's reliance on those decisions is misplaced. It has failed to consider the severity and pervasive nature of the claimant's injuries, instead relying solely on the age of the claimants. In Wilkes, the claimant sustained a fractured sternum and soft tissue injuries. In Wade, the claimant sustained three fractures, and psychological sequelae.
4. Counsel for the claimant made oral submission at the assessment conference that there had been no challenge by the insurer to the claimant's evidence that he continues to suffer:

(a) unrelenting neck pain;

(b) fatigue;

(c) impaired concentration;

(d) post-traumatic stress disorder;

(e) hypervigilance;

(f) loss of taste and smell;

(g) loss of his career;

(h) impact on his marriage;

(i) impact on social life;

(j) impaired ability to participate in pre-injury social, recreational and sporting activities, and

(k) impaired ability to travel.

1. Noting high inflation and the capping of damages, the claimant submitted that I was not to assess as a comparison of the worst imaginable case but on common law principles.
2. The claimant submitted that he had sustained:

(a) a closed head injury;

(b) C7 vertebral body fracture;

(c) displaced distal fracture on his nose;

(d) deep lacerations;

(e) psychological sequelae, and

(f) loss of taste and smell in itself "eating being a great enjoyment in life is very serious and permanent."

1. Given the severity and pervasive nature of his injuries and noting the increased maximum sum now of $691,000 it was confirmed that there was "nothing remarkable to seek $475,000 for this case."

1. The insurer in written submissions referred me to cl 7.37 of the Guidelines which states that a proposed settlement figure must be:

"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 and disabilities and losses sustained by the claimant."

1. The insurer has conceded that the claimant is above the threshold for his injuries and is entitled to non economic loss. The insurer refers to and relies on the cases of AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Wilkes [2024] NSWPIC526 where a 63-year-old was awarded $315,000 and AAI Limited v Wade [2025] where a 62-year-old was awarded $310,000.
2. The insurer relies on the above cases as Members' assessments of damage with comparable ages and severity of injury.
3. The insurer acknowledges the claimant significant injuries and has ongoing disabilities, particularly associated with pain and stiffness in his cervical spine. However, the insurer also notes the claimant has been certified fit for pre-injury duties and is actively seeking employment, has returned to some form of exercise and has recently travelled overseas, is capable of all self-care and personal hygiene routines and does not have significant psychological sequelae. The claimant has also recovered to a point he is able to travel overseas and participate in activities such as skiing.
4. In final oral submissions made at the assessment conference the insurer contended that the claimant's injuries were more in line with damages usually assessed in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and submitted the sum of $300,000 was the appropriate sum. It argued that "The sum proposed by the claimant was more in line with loss of a limb."

Non-economic loss is defined in s 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) to mean:

(b) loss of amenities of life;

(c) loss of expectation of life, and

(d) disfigurement."

1. The maximum has now been adjusted by the operation of s 4.22 at the date the award is made. Section 4.13 should now be read as follows:

(a) the maximum amount for damages that may be awarded for non-economic loss is $691,000.

1. A claimant being entitled to damages for non-economic loss is then to be assessed in accordance with common law principles within the confine of this statutory cap. The amount of damages to be awarded should be proportionate to the claimant's injuries and disabilities and it is a relationship of the award to the injury and its consequences which is to be proportionate and the amount of damages must be fair and reasonable compensation for the injuries received and disabilities caused by the motor accident. It is to be proportionate to the situation of the particular claimant and not to the situation of other parties in other actions, even if there is some similarity between their situations.
2. The amount awarded is not to be assessed on the basis of a percentage of the maximum but on the basis of what the appropriate dollar amount is having regard to the nature and extent of the injuries and disabilities suffered by the claimant including the period between the date of accident to the date of assessment and the impact continuing for the anticipated lifetime of the claimant.
3. Common law principles include that I have regard to other amounts assessed for

non-economic loss by other Members and courts (James Hardie & Co v Newton [1977] 42 NSWLR 729 as per Handley JA at 732). 4. The degree of WPI is used as a statutory mechanism to qualify a claimant for entitlement to non-economic loss only. It is not a reliable indicator of the severity or otherwise of the claimant's injuries and disabilities and the impact of such injuries. It does not directly measure incapacity, pain and suffering which is required when determining damages for

non-economic loss. 5. The claimant is now aged 62 years with a life expectancy of a further 23.79 years (Medium Life Expectancy, Australia, 2025). 6. Having regard to the severe nature and extent of injuries suffered by the claimant. His statement dated 2 May 2025 at paragraph 57 lists his ongoing problems:

"Although the treatment detailed above has improved the injuries I sustained in the subject accident, I continue to suffer the following disabilities:

(a) Ongoing chronic pain and stiffness in my neck;

(b) Reduced range of movement in my neck;

(c) Reduced range of movement in my left and right shoulder;

(d) Inability to sit for longer than 30 minutes at a time due to ongoing neck pain;

(e) Inability to drive for longer than 30 minutes at a time due to ongoing neck pain;

(f) Ongoing chronic pain in the upper back;

(g) Significant tension headaches approximately two to three times per week;

(h) Stiffness and discomfort affecting my thoracic spine;

(i) Stiffness and discomfort affecting my left wrist;

(j) Left wrist pain;

(k) A slightly reduced range of motion in my left wrist;

(l) Intermittent pins and needles and numbness affecting the arms;

(m) Altered sensation, stiffness and pain in my lip;

(n) Area of numbness over the vermillion border of my upper lip;

(o) Difficulty with chewing food, and pronouncing words;

(p) Loss of confidence in my ability to speak effectively, in a vocational/occupational environment;

(q) Loss of smell;

(r) Increased sensitivity to hot and cold food in my teeth;

(s) Significant residual scarring over my upper lip and over my right check;

(t) Loss of sleep as a result of the pain;

(u) Pervasive fatigue;

(v) Difficulty concentrating throughout the day as a result of poor sleep; and

(w) Difficulty with air travel due to damaged sinuses."

1. The claimant gave his evidence frankly and was a witness of truth and did not appear to overstate or exaggerate the impact of his injuries on him.
2. The claimant sustained significant injuries that have caused considerable disruption to the claimant's quality of life both psychically and psychologically.
3. Taking into consideration all the information before me, I assess non-economic loss in the sum of $425,000.

1. The claimant at the time of the accident was employed as a chief financial officer with Bluestone Home loans. He had been offered significant incentives to move from his previous long-term position with NSW Treasury and saw his role as another long-term position.
2. The claimant was unable to work for three months following the accident. He attempted a return in November 2023 after removal of the neck brace, but chronic pain and physical limitations prevented him from performing his duties.
3. His employer at the time, Bluestone Home Loans, expressed doubt about his capacity to meet the demands of the role, citing his ongoing impairments.
4. On 11 December 2023, Bluestone's Head of HR requested a meeting with the claimant and informed him his employment would cease that week. Bluestone noted that they had already sourced a replacement to commence in the claimant's role.
5. Given his inability to meet the role requirements and the severity of his ongoing pain, the claimant agreed to cease work as of 11 December 2023. He has not returned to the paid workforce since.
6. The claimant has actively sought employment, engaging recruitment agencies including Derwent Executive, Orchard Recruitment, Korn Ferry, Heidrick & Struggles, Odgers Bernstein, and Dermott Executive. However, due to his restrictions, no suitable roles have been found.
7. He has however assisted in unpaid start up roles in the event to keep his CV current for future opportunities.
8. In late 2024, for example, the claimant was shortlisted for a role with ASIC but was ultimately unsuccessful. It is the claimant's position that his ongoing impairments significantly disadvantaged him in the process.
9. Despite consistent efforts, the claimant has been unable to secure employment. Feedback from recruiters confirms that his physical limitations, particularly with travel, mobility, and the necessity for part time flexible hours, put him at a significant disadvantage compared to other candidates within an incredibly competitive market.
10. While the claimant retains a notional capacity for limited part-time work (four hours per day) no flexible roles have been available that align with the claimant's current limitations.
11. At the time of the subject accident the claimant was working as a chief financial officer earning $10,198 fortnightly net ($5,099 weekly). The statutory cap was $4,417.50 per week at the date of the accident.
12. The claimant has calculated losses based upon periods of total incapacity using the updated 1 October 2025 indexed amount as follows:

(a) $5,106 x 115.5 = $589,743 round down to $580,000 to reflect a very short attempt to return to work.

1. Loss of superannuation was claimed in the sum of $70,000.
2. The claimant relied on the following medical opinion to support the impairment to earning capacity:

(a) his employment limitations as recommended by Dr Dias were as follows:

(i) work on a part-time basis of up to 20 hours per week (four hours per day five days per week);

(ii) avoid lifting any items weighing greater than 5kg on a repetitive basis;

(iii) avoid performing any pulling and pushing duties using force greater than 5kg;

(iv) avoid walking on flat ground for longer than 20 minutes at a time;

(v) avoid standing for longer than one hour at a time;

(vi) take a break from seated computer-based work every 20 minutes;

(vii) computer workstation should be ergonomically optimised wherever possible;

(viii) avoid driving for longer than 30 minutes at a time;

(ix) avoid performing any tasks that involve repetitive bending and twisting of the torso;

(x) avoid performing any tasks that involve overhead or above shoulder height work;

(xi) avoid performing any work tasks in confined spaces;

(xii) avoid performing any tasks that involve repetitive tight gripping with the left hand;

(xiii) avoid talking continuously for longer than 10 minutes at a time; and

(b) Dr Mitchell prescribed the following vocational restrictions:

(i) physical activities below mid chest height and close to the body trunk, particularly if repeated or sustained in nature, to avoid aggravating his symptoms;

(ii) frequent manual handling actions should be limited to 5kg in force with respect to lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling actions undertaken;

(iii) on an occasional basis, up to 10kg should be possible in the manner described above, and

(iv) fixed and awkward head and neck spinal postures should be avoided.

1. Further the claimant submitted that in light of the above it is hard to imagine the claimant securing and/or maintaining any suitable vocations other than in an extremely flexible work environment and then subject to major risk of continuity. His competitiveness for positions has been deleteriously affected if not destroyed, particularly when needing to avoid fixed and awkward head and neck spinal postures. His employment longevity is no doubt significantly curtailed in comparison. As previously set out, the claim for economic loss is very substantial and even further supported by your engaged expert.

1. At the commencement of the assessment the insurer took issue with the contents of the claimant's statement at various paragraphs. Whilst counsel for the insurer objected to the particulars contents on the basis it was hearsay and "understood that the rules of evidence don't apply", went on to submitted that "rules of fairness do apply" and to allow the material in would be unfair. The basis of the objection being that it was hearsay and the claimant's interpretation of what he heard.
2. The insurer further argued that whilst it tried to get more information without success directly from the employer, at the end of the day, its not up to the defendant (insurer) to prove the plaintiff's (claimant's) case.
3. I ruled that the information contained in the claimant's statement was allowed in at the assessment and that whatever weight I should give to it would be a matter for submissions.
4. I note that in final oral submissions counsel for the insurer conceded it was appropriate for me to allow the material in within the jurisdiction of the Commission, but had the matter been heard in a Court, the evidence of the claimant would have been insufficient to establish the losses claimed and the claim for economic loss would fail.
5. The insurer confirmed the paid statutory weekly payments amounted to $77,162 which included tax in the sum of $26,697(p 52 of joint bundle). These payments covered the period to 14 December 2023.
6. The insurer's submissions made by counsel orally at the assessment were that:

(a) no allowance should be made for past and future economic loss other than the amount of statutory weekly payments made;

(b) the claimant was not terminated, he resigned his position and relied upon a letter from the employer provided in August 2024 which supported this proposition;

(c) the claimant had been able to exercise capacity to worked unpaid for the period of at least six months in June to December 2024 working a day a week to assist a friend setting up his business, and

(d) he was applying for full-time positions and clearly believed he had the capacity to undertake full-time work.

1. The claimant was questioned during the assessment conference as to his recollection of when he left the employment with Bluestone. His evidence was that during a meeting on 11 December 2023 with Mark the CEO and Helen from HR, he was informed that his position would cease at the end of the week. That being 15 December 2023.
2. The insurer questioned based on a letter received from his employer in August the following year which indicated he resigned his position and was paid to 4 February 2024.
3. The claimant was certain he did not resign and that it was due to the difficulties associated with his injuries he was given notice of one week. He stated "I finished on the Friday

15 December 2023." 4. Further questioning took place as to why he received payment to end of January 2024, and the claimant believed these payments were in lieu of notice. 5. The insurer relied on the letter provided by Bluestone in August 2024 to evidence the employer's position that the claimant resigned from employment and was not terminated. 6. Critical to the ongoing issue between the parties at the assessment was the impact of this piece of information. Did the claimant in fact resign or was he terminated. 7. The insurer submitted that the claimant left this position for unknown reasons. No logical basis was offered other than the contention that even on the claimant's evidence he had significantly fulfilled the tasks of financially turning the company around by this stage.

1. The predominant issue during questioning of the claimant at the assessment was whether the claimant was terminated or resigned from his employment at Bluestone Home Loans.
2. Having reviewed the information contained in the claimant's statement, histories provided to medical practitioners and oral information given at the assessment conference, I am satisfied that the claimant intended to remain in the employ of Bluestone Home Loans but for the accident.
3. The claimant was adamant that he was called into a meeting with HR representatives and management and was requested to cease work.
4. The long-term roles that the claimant undertook before the subject accident included:

(a) Westpac in finance roles ending as Head of Finance and Programme Office from 1985 to 2003;

(b) Santander for over 10 years as finance director of wealth management, managing director of intermediary and corporate banking - 2004 to 2014;

(c) consultancy in UK 2014 to 2016 - returned to Australia, and

(d) NSW Treasury Deputy Secretary of the Policy and Budget group from 2016 to 2022.

1. I am persuaded by the oral responses given by the claimant at the assessment conference that he was asked to leave their employ on or about 11 December 2023 and did not just resign from Bluestone Home Loans. Whilst the insurer relied on particulars provided by the employer, this information and the basis of it was vague. The author is unknown.
2. There were discrepancies between the claimant's date he left employment based on the dates of payments made according to the employer document. This did not extinguish the claimant's evidence that he physically worked till the Friday of the week he was asked to leave being 15 December 2023. This was just before Christmas holiday period and the payments made to the end of January 2024 may have included annual leave or other holiday benefits.
3. The claimant had an impressive pre-accident work history and it did not consist of short-term contracts with the exception of the period he remained in the United Kingdon between 2014 to 2016 due to a close relative's illness.
4. I am persuaded by the claimant's evidence that he was provided equity incentive associated with the monetisation of the company sale. An opportunity where he was to be involved in significant mixed management incentives and a plan for monetary reward over time, based on success of the proposed enterprise. He was receiving financial reward above the level of similar roles according to the Mr Claire, the insurer's qualified expert.
5. I accept the factual scenario provided by the claimant that whilst the claimant remained off work due to his injuries there was a change in the structure of the company and a new chief executive officer (CEO) Mark Jones was appointed. He did not know and was not a part of ongoing management decisions at this time and only met the new staff on his return

post-accident. 6. The claimant gave evidence that he attempted a returned part-time in November 2023 with many of his injuries still impacting upon him. His evidence is that he was terminated on 11 December 2023 and this was a consequence of his reduced capacity which resulted from his injuries sustained in the motor accident. 7. His evidence was clear on this point. He gave his recollect of a meeting with CEO Mark Jones and HR representative Helen Attier:

"I was called into a meeting and advised that they wanted to make it my last week as I was unable to meet the role and they needed someone else that could deal with the demands of the role and attention required."

1. The claimant genuinely believes that it was his inability to work full-time duties and his compromised ability requiring him to take regular breaks due to pain that cost him his job.
2. In his further statement he stated at paragraph 25:

"... at this point I was in too much pain and too exhausted from my injuries to question the decision. I was suffering high levels of pain and discomfort. I simply did not have the ability or energy to consider alternatives. I also knew that I needed to properly focus on my recovery, both mentally and physically. I had no insight about any PTSD at that time..."

1. The information to which the insurer questioned the claimant in detail during the assessment conference, related to a document drafted in reply to certain questions requested by the insurer from the claimant's employer Bluestone. The details of who responded and in what capacity is unknown. The date of the document is also unknown but I am advised was received some time in August 2024.
2. This two-page response was contained in the information bundle at R13 at page 488 and 489. Review of this document revealed it is a response to a set of questions. It was not on any distinguishing letterhead (page 487 of bundle). It recorded the following (Note the question then the response below it):

(ii) Duties and Responsibilities

(iii) Basis of employment

(b) Performance Issues

(i) Performance of duties

(j) No issues

(ii) General Health and Attendances

If appropriate, the date and reason(s) for termination of the

1. The insurer contended that there were no recorded performance issues following the accident and that the claimant resigned on 1 January 2024 with his last date of employment on 31 January 2024. Relying on the contents of the employer's response.
2. In submission, "the insurer contends the claimant voluntarily left his previous employment for reasons unrelated to the subject accident." In oral submission counsel for the insurer commented that the employer could not just sack the claimant as a consequence of his

ill-health as this was contrary to legislation and highly unlikely in the circumstances. 3. The claimant's counsel took issue with the weight I should give the particular document noting it was unsigned and the author unknown. 4. Having reviewed the various documents provided and referring to the evidence before me on this point, I have accepted the claimant as a witness of truth. I agree with the claimant that the information contained in this response should bear little weight in relation to his cessation of employment and the reason why it took place. If indeed the claimant was requested to leave his position as he could not complete his duties, the employer is unlikely to record it as a termination due to his injuries or illness and more likely persuade the claimant to leave the position and record a "resigned" to avoid legal ramifications. 5. Neith party sought to call the employer to give evidence on this.

1. I am satisfied that the medical evidence supports the claimant's position that he was unable to return to work until late November 2023 after he strengthened his neck muscles upon ceasing use of cervical collar.
2. I accept the claimant's evidence that upon return to work, he found it very difficult at that time to attend to his usual tasks due to the pain and restrictions imposed by both physical and psychological injuries.
3. The claimant's incapacity has been supported by certificates of total incapacity from the date of accident to 20 November 2023 with functional limitation being pain (certificate 2.39 page 379 of bundle).
4. A level of fitness for pre-injury work was certified by Dr Quittner from 4 February 2025 (certificate 2.40 page 382 of bundle). This accords with the claimant's increased search for full-time work.
5. Whilst the claimant still suffers ongoing restrictions he has been certified as fit to return to full-time duties within the noted restrictions. The reason for ongoing losses claimed is that the claimant contends his injuries impact his ability to secure any employment.
6. This loss of earning capacity is directly attributed to the impact of the claimant's injuries and ongoing disabilities. He has reported assisting a friend for a period of approximately six months during mid to late 2024 and this was to increase his changes of obtaining employment by not having a gap in his resume for a significant period of time.
7. I accept that the claimant has applied on five occasions for positions, has been selected for interviews with recruiters based on his curriculum vitae and has been unable to secure any employment.
8. He was questioned at the assessment conference as to what information was given when he made his application and he revealed he did not advise of the motor accident when making written applications as he would not be afforded an interview if this was disclosed. Instead, when being interviewed at the recruiter's interview or short-list interview, he then discloses some difficulties he would have with extended travel due to his injuries and the need for regular breaks. It has been at this juncture that recruiters either suggest he seeks a different position or advise him he is unsuitable to be put forward.
9. It is the claimant's evidence that upon disclosing these issues, he has not been offered any employment. He has not been advised that his qualifications or experience have any negative impact to the contrary his qualifications and experience are highly regarded. Thus, he considers he is suffering on the open labour market due to the injuries and disabilities he currently suffers from and the restrictions these ongoing disabilities place upon his ability to undertake pre-accident work-related roles.
10. I am satisfied that the claimant has attempted to mitigate his loss and is motivated to find employment. The claimant's oral submissions conceded "the claimant is not a cripple". The claimant has suffered impairment to his earning capacity as a consequence of injuries sustained in the subject accident. The claimant is not pain or symptom free and the restrictions place on him as to standing, sitting, computer activity impact his ability to work without regular breaks and for shorter periods.
11. I am satisfied that the restrictions prescribed by Dr Dias mention above, are continuing and that the claimant's earning capacity has been impaired as claimed. The claimant's exhibited need for flexibility being part-time work, flexibility with movements and the need for change of posture, limited manual taskwork and the need for an ergonomic workstation are part of the ongoing restrictions. The reduced speaking capacity due to lip pain and scarring, psychological impairments, poor concentration at times and sleep deprivation due to ongoing pain have also impaired his earning capacity.
12. I do not accept the insurer's submission that the claimant voluntarily left employment as the claimant's evidence given at the assessment was that he was requested to leave.
13. There is medical support for ongoing restrictions and impaired earning capacity and I am persuaded by the claimant's submissions that losses claimed by the claimant are appropriately quantified losses based upon his pre-injury earning capacity.
14. I also have regard to the opinion of Mr Claire a recruitment expert qualified by the insurer that some of the roles the claimant has applied for recently, in particular a position with ASIC, is one where his qualification may not have been the most suited to the position applied for. At page 550 of the bundle it records the following opinion:

"7.7 It is my view that the claimant would not be a suitable candidate for the CFO role with ASIC. If you look at the profile of the person who left the role, Peter Dunlop, the first thing that I see as a major difference is that Peter is a qualified Chartered Accountant. He has 13 years of experience in Federal Government organisations, and he has extensive experience on audit & risk committees. Peter is also a graduate of the Australian Institute of Directors.

7.8 The person who is currently acting in the CFO role, Lisa Rees,2, as per the ASIC Organisational Chart,3 has a similar background to Peter Dunlop. She has almost 10 years' experience in Federal Government, and she is a qualified Chartered Accountant. This demonstrates that the things that were valued by ASIC were having a qualified accountant in the role and having someone with Federal Government experience."

1. The claimant may well have been unsuccessful for reasons other than those held by the claimant. This is not a criticism of the claimant's willingness to seek such employment, but does highlight that the claimant's understanding of why he has not been successful in his quest to re-enter the workforce to date, may be unrelated to the impact of the injuries sustained in the subject accident as he would have me to believe. O do accept that he has suffered impairment to his earning capacity in any event.
2. Noting the above, I consider it is appropriate in the circumstances to allow the claimant full past economic losses as claimed for the past to 21 October 2025 as per his submissions.
3. I assess past economic loss in the total sum of $676,697 as per the claimant's calculations to date as follows:

(a) $5,106 (net weekly maximum) x 115.5 weeks (date of accident to

21 October 2025) = $589,743 round down to $580,000 to reflect a very short attempt to return to work;

(b) loss of superannuation in the sum of $70,000, and

(c) tax on payments $26,697.

1. In the absence of anything more than theoretical earning capacity, the claimant relies upon Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121 at [65]; Mead v Kearney [2012] NSWCA 215 at [24] - [27], and South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2017] NSWCA 201 at [72]- [74].
2. Further the reality of the claimant competing with uninjured persons for relative positions, such competitiveness tends to it being unrealistic that he will procure any similar such prior roles on the open labour market.
3. Further, due to his age, developed occupation and skills, it is submitted that his residual earning capacity may well be "nothing." Relying on the decision of Wade v Allsop (1976) 10 ALR353.
4. This is further highlighted by the expert recruiter's report served by the insurer Mr Claire dated 28 July 2025 (page 541 of bundle). One wonders why this sort of analysis for the purposes of assisting in RTW was not undertaken by the insurer much earlier with a view to enabling the claimant to consider the scenarios of his predicament. The fact that the claimant has been seriously injured and his vocational life turned upside down has no doubt been overwhelming and practical input and assistance is precisely what is contemplated by the MAI Act scheme and the provisions of s 4.15(6).
5. The claimant is unlikely to return to work in the very near future despite best attempts. A full economic loss to age 70 equates to $1,764,633.60 without deduction for vicissitudes considering the short period. The multiplier used for eight years being 345.6 and the current weekly maximum amount of $5,106.
6. The reality is that the extent of the claimant's future employment is likely to be at best uncertain, irregular and with a very poor prognosis for any sustainability.
7. Whilst the insurer has not demonstrated even any short-term options in line with Livaja, the long-term security of any employment seems improbable.
8. The claimant's counsel at the assessment conference made further oral submissions:

(a) that the dispute was nuanced and required me to take into account the personal circumstances of the claimant. Not merely an impact to earning capacity by way of percentage. I needed to consider that the claimant is competing with others on the open labour market who are not impaired and it is an "all or nothing proposition";

(b) counsel for the claimant submitted: "The claimant has made valiant attempts since his cessation of employment with Bluestone to obtain alternate employment all of which have been unsuccessful." The claimant having worked in a particular field for many years is different to a younger person on the threshold of a career who may have other avenues open. It was suggested that the claimant has considerable disadvantage and persons without impaired capacity would be preferred;

(c) noting that the claimant has attempted to mitigate his loss counsel further submitted "the proper approach to the assessment of damages is to allow close to full loss that has resulted to him", and

(d) in response to the insurer position the claimant submitted "it is too simplistic and probably wrong."

1. From age 70 and beyond, the claimant also contends that he would have continued to work part-time and or taken Board position which are now made less likely as a consequence of his loss of active engagement and that the likelihood is that he would now have to undertake more executive type roles which would likely be rendered impossible as his condition deteriorates and so it is expected that any earning capacity post 75 is now de minimis_._
2. If one were to allow even a modest average expectation of $3,000 per week (inclusive of superannuation) for say five years, this would equate to $3,000 x 231.5 x 0.677 (eight years deferred), so an amount of $470,176.50.
3. Taking into account negative vicissitudes that may have arisen post 70 in circumstances where none are provided prior to age 70, the claimant is prepared to reduce the claim by one-third, so well above the usual 15%, equating to the order of $313,451 inclusive of superannuation, but say $300,000.
4. In final oral submissions counsel further submitted that in the event I did not consider full losses as claimed, then an appropriate alternative was to make an assessed based on the cap be applied to age 70 years but instead of allowing 15% deduction for vicissitudes, increase the deduction to 30%.

1. The claimant retains considerable earning capacity to work and this is evidenced by the claimant's continued intention to return to the workforce. It is note that whilst the claimant has been seeking employment since 2024 and as recent as June 2025 applied for a position with ASIC, the insurer contends that the lack of success in obtaining such roles is not injury related but due to market forces and inappropriate qualifications for the roles he is applying for.
2. The claimant still has reasonable prospects of success in obtaining employment and is continuing to make application. "He could obtain a position tomorrow".
3. There should be no allowance and at best if I were to allow the maximum to age 70 years then the sum applied for vicissitudes should be a deduction of 50%.

"(1) Damages may not be awarded for future economic loss unless the claimant first satisfies the court of Commission that the assumptions about future earning capacity or other events on which the award is to be based accord with the claimant's most likely circumstances but for the injury.

(2) The amount of damages for future economic loss that would have been sustained on those assumptions is to be adjusted by reference to the percentage possibility that the events concerned might have occurred but for the injury.

(3) If an award for future economic loss is made, the court or Commission is required to state the assumptions on which the award is based and the relevant percentage by which damages were adjusted."

(a) the claimant has been motivated to return to employment and has attempted to seek employment since the accident on five occasions which has not been successful. The basis of his lack of success is multifactored. His age, gender, qualifications and restrictions all play a part;

(b) the claimant to his credit intends to continue to look for employment and is capable of a return to part-time and possible full-time depending on the role he obtains, and

(c) the claimant intended to work to age 70 years and thereafter intended to continue in a consultancy capacity or Board member roles.

1. I refer to my determination of past-economic loss and the restrictions accepted in that head of damage also applies to future economic loss. The claimant continues to have restrictions as noted by Dr Dias and previously referred in these reasons. The extent of the losses cannot be calculated with precision, noting the claimant whilst unsuccessful to date, may very well be able to obtain a position in the future.
2. It is accepted that the claimant finds himself on the open labour market with some restrictions that are attributable to the injuries sustained in the subject accident. He has a certificate of fitness and so I accept he has a significant residual earning capacity.
3. Whilst the extent of losses cannot be precisely calculated due to the many variables that may occur, I accept that it is more likely than not that the claimant will continue to suffer losses into the future.
4. The claimant has a duty to mitigate his losses and is attempting this by seeking employment. He is highly skilled and according to the opinion of expert recruiter Mr Claire, his age and gender factors being a male, will impact his success in finding employment in any event. He does hold a more positive skillset for financial roles in part-time roles as there is increased demand according to a recent RBA report for males over 55 (see 7.24 at p 554).
5. Noting the investigations of Mr Claire into suitable roles available to the claimant, is it more probable that not, that the claimant will ultimately find employment in the financial sector where hiring staff with disability and flexibility in particular roles are available and Mr Claire suggested "head of risk and compliance is a more administrative function" according to an RBA report currently has an increase in demand for males over 55.
6. I have regard to the submissions provided by both the claimant and insurer, both have merit.
7. Whilst the claimant's position is that he is unlikely to secure any further employment on the open labour market, I am not persuaded that the claimant does not hold significant residual earning capacity in other finance sector roles and is likely to secure some form of employment in the future.
8. Whilst the claimant may seek only CFO roles or similar graded positions, he retains earning capacity in other graded roles. The evidence of Mr Claire is that he has been unsuccessful part due to experience and qualification in the role he is selecting to date however, the claimant continues to make application and wants to work and is more likely than not able to secure some employment even if it is not full time.
9. The opinion of Mr Claire confirmed there is age and gender discrimination working against older males such as the claimant. He also opined that the claimant is likely to find positions in the finance sector in full-time or part-time in other roles such as head of department at lower levels and at decreased remuneration in state government or commercial boutique companies.
10. Even with restrictions and the need for flexibility, Mr Claire considered there are reasonable prospects for the claimant to obtain full or part-time positions in "roles that are not time sensitive such as 'risk and compliance can be more of an administrative position'."
11. At 7.27 of his report Mr Clare considered positions with ING Bank and Liberty Finance suitable roles with companies acknowledged to hire those with disabilities.
12. Part-time roles were also available and becoming more popular for "boutique and medium sized organisations that don't need full-time resources. An RBA report citing males over

55 years as an increased area of demand (7.27 at page 554)." 13. I accept that the claimant to date has not been able to find suitable employment. I also agree with the insurer that the claimant may be able to find a position tomorrow. 14. I am also persuaded by the opinion of Mr Claire that the claimant is likely to find employment in other areas if he seeks such roles. Mr Clare opined he is well suited to "head or risk, head of treasury, head of product in both state government and private commercial enterprises." 15. The claimant is likely to suffer economic loss if a lower paid role is accepted to that he was receiving at Bluestone. Bluestone was paying him a significant amount higher than the industry average. His earning capacity in the role of CFO at Bluestone was $444,708 gross compared to an average for CFO's currently of $225,000 across the industry sector at present as reported by Mr Claire. 16. The claimant to his credit is continuing to seek employment. He is looking for the highly paid roles, applying for them and clearly believes he has the experience, qualifications and capacity to undertake these roles even now. He also gave evidence he will continue to seek employment.

1. The claimant's made additional submissions that he would have worked post-age 70 in an advisory or consultancy capacity or as a Board member.
2. I note the opinion of Mr Clare that it was "highly unlikely post 70 to be successful due to technology and age discrimination" for the claimant to be successful in this venture.
3. Mr Claire also commented that he was "unlikely" to secure Board member roles as he did not hold the required experience or AICD membership and qualifications against a background of 53,000 accredited and registered members currently seeking positions.
4. Whilst the claimant seeks damages for this period, I do not accept the claimed losses would have occurred but for the accident on the information received from Mr Claire.
5. I make no allowance for this claimed loss of post age 70 years.

1. I assess future economic loss as follows having regard to the claimant having significant residual earning capacity: There is a significant possibility that the claimant will obtain employment in some form in the future and I factor in this possibility when assessing future economic losses. I calculate future economic loss at the maximum weekly rate for the working life to age 70 years with a deduction of vicissitudes of 40%. I note the claimant suggested 30% and the insurer 50%:
2. The mathematical formulation of loss is:

(a) the current statutory weekly maximum $5,106;

(b) for a period to age 70 years (8 years) noting the claimant is currently 62 years of age;

(c) the calculation being $5,106 weekly x multiplier for eight years (345.6) = $1,764,633.60;

(d) less vicissitude of 40% = $705,853.44;

(e) $1,764,633.60 -$705,853.44 = $1,058,780.16;

(f) superannuation as claimed (11%) = $ 116,465.80, and

total inclusive of superannuation amounts to $1,175,245.96**.**

1. I assess future economic loss in the sum of $1,175,245.96

1. The claimant seeks an award for travel damages in accordance with s 4.5(1)(b) of MAI Act, and Regulation 9 of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017. The claimant relies on the decision in White v AAMI Limited [2021] NSWPIC 449 which was recently reinforced in Noor v Transport Accident Commission [2024] NSWPIC 25. In line with the principles established in these decisions, the claimant submits that, due to the persistent pain and physical limitations arising from the accident, he is no longer able to travel long distances by car or in economy class.
2. The claimant relies on the report of Dr Dias dated 24 May 2024, which confirms the claimant's ability to engage in sedentary activities is severely restricted. Consequently, long haul flights in economy class are no longer feasible given his current physical limitations, which require him to stretch, walk, and medicate regularly.
3. As such, the claimant ought now fly in business class for longer domestic travel and international trips. Any prior preference for business class was a matter of choice, rather than necessity.
4. The current overseas difference is in the order of at least $12,500 return trip say to Europe. The claimant expected to undertake at least the equivalence of two such overseas trips per year (factoring in domestic as well) save for his incapacity to do so at all in the past which is factored for in non-economic loss.
5. Based on the ongoing need to travel business class, the claimant estimates an annual additional cost of $25,000, translating to a weekly loss of approximately $500. Over a 10-year period, this would amount to $206,450.68. The claimant claimed $200,000.
6. In final oral submissions, the claimant suggested an appropriate allowance $6,000 annually.

1. The claim should be disallowed. The claimant is able to travel and has done so on many occasions since the accident. He is able to ski now, albeit not the black runs and with this evidence of capacity should not need assistance with travel costs of business class.
2. The claimed $12,000 being the additional costs between economy and business class was also dispute with reference to the costs of Sydney to London route with Qantas being currently the difference of $10,000 and relied upon a printout from internet search on the day of the assessment conference.

1. Having regard to the claimant's ongoing disabilities, I accept that the claimant may need to rely on additional comfort for longer flights from time to time. I also note he has recently travelled in premium economy class.
2. The problems associated with travel have been reported as difficulty with sinuses and this would be an impact no matter what class travelled. The claim of two trips annually on domestic and international routes at business class rate is excessive. The claimant recently travelled in premium economy and did not report any difficulties.
3. In the circumstances, where the claimant can break up journeys to alleviate discomfort and noting most of the business class travelled in the past was at the expense of his employers, I do not accept the claimed business class travel reasonable or necessity and consider a buffer is more appropriate for fare differences between economy and premium economy. Noting the claimant is able to ski, the impact of an ability to lie flat have not been proven to be medically necessary or essential.
4. I accept the claimant has travelled regularly both before and after the subject accident and that he will continue to enjoy travel for the reminder of his life.
5. Accepting that his ongoing injuries and disabilities impact on his ability to travel to a lesser extent that submitted but his sitting and standings is impacted, I allow a buffer of $50,000 for the additional costs of travel.

1. I assess the claim as follows on the findings set out above:

(a) past-economic loss $676,697

(b) Future loss of earnings (incl. superannuation) $1,175,245.96

(c) Travel $50,000

Total of economic losses and non-economic loss $2,326,942.96

1. The parties were provided draft determination for submissions to be made on interest claimed.
2. Interest has been claimed by the claimant in his submissions dated 28 October 2025 as follows:

(a) on the amount of past economic loss of $599,535 from the last dated of work being 15 December 2023 in the sum of $34,397.06 as per calculations made in paragraphs 16 to 20.

1. The insurer submitted that interest should not follow the last date of work as in its opinion the insurer was not in a position to make a reasonable assessment of the full entitlement to damages of any kind at that date and relied upon the provisions of s4.16 of the Act .

(a) The insurer submitted the application for interest should only commence after it had the opportunity of its own medico-legal evidence after the claim was wholly particularised. Given the claimant was and is still actively job seeking and final particulars were provided on 12 May 2025. It calculated interest in accordance with its mathematical formula in par 16 and 17 of final submissions dated 31 October 2025. The sum conceded was $16,071.03.

1. The claimant in final response to the insurer the object of an award for interest could have been avoided by the insurer making a written offer sufficient not to engage the provisions of s4.16. Whilst the insurer may have made oral offers it was not reduced to writing.

1. Having regard to the provisions of 4.16 I do not accept that interest should run from the last day the claimant worked. It should run from the date the parties made their first written offer as I consider it is at that point that there was information that would enable a proper assessment of the claim and the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to make an offer of settlement in respect of the full entitlement to all damages of any kind. The submissions confirmed the insurer's written offer was $600,000 inclusive of costs dated 27 March 2025 and the claimant's the same date of $2,350,000 plus costs.

1. I allow interest on the sum of $599,535 representing past economic loss damages from 27 March 2025 to date:

(a) 27 March 2025 to 30 June 2025 : 8.35% x 75% = 6.2625% - rate of 102.87 per day x 96 days = $ 9875.52

(b) 1July 2025 to 7 November 2025: 7.85% x 75% = 5.8875% = 96.71 per day x 130 days = $12,572.30

(c) $22,447.82 x 50% = $11,223.91

1. I assess the claimant's legal costs and disbursements in accordance with Part 8 of the MAI Act and the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017, Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020, in accordance with the attached sheet in the amount of $125,431.90
2. The insurer is to have credit for statutory weekly payments made pursuant to s 3.40 to