1. Issued under s 7.36 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
2. Damages assessed in the sum of $0.

1. On 6 August 2020, the claimant Ms Hind Masri was a front seat passenger in a car driven by a family member when a vehicle failed to give way and collided with the car in which

Ms Masri was travelling. 2. She has made a claim for common law damages against the insurer, QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (insurer). The insurer admitted liability for the accident and there is no allegation for contributory negligence. 3. At the time of the accident, Ms Masri was in receipt of Centrelink benefits. 4. Although Ms Masri has been legally represented, at the time of a further preliminary conference on 16 October 2025 and the assessment conference, she had no legal representation.

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCES AND ASSESSMENT CONFERENCE

1. The preliminary conference was held between Ms Masri's lawyer and the insurer's legal representative on 8 May 2025. Directions were issued to the claimant to answer the insurer's further and better particulars. The parties agreed to list the claim for an assessment conference on 11 September 2025.
2. Prior to the assessment conference date, Ms Masri's legal representative filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 14 August 2025. Due this development, I held an urgent further preliminary conference on 16 October 2025 at 11.30am. An interpreter was booked to assist Ms Masri . The insurer and Ms Masri agreed to list this claim for an assessment conference on 20 November 2025 at 11.30am via video link with directions to file additional evidence and bundle of documents. The format was nominated by Ms Masri notwithstanding the insurer's preference to hold an in-person assessment conference.
3. Prior to the assessment conference, Ms Masri confirmed, via her son Ahmad, she had no further evidence to file and agreed I assess her claim on the papers. The insurer objected to this format and pressed for the video assessment conference. As there was no agreement, I confirmed the assessment would proceed via video link. There was an issue with the interpreter's attendance which was resolved before the time of the hearing. Both Ms Masri and the interpreter were provided with a bundle of documents, indexed and paginated.
4. I confirm all listed parties above were present during the video assessment conference and all parties had the documents. I also had the advantage of a previous submission lodged on behalf of Ms Masri and attached documents which included medical reports, correspondence between lawyers, radiological reports, and the reply to the general assessment application.
5. I advised all parties that the assessment conference was being recorded and that a transcript was available at the conclusion of the hearing.
6. Before the formal hearing commenced, Mr Wilson requested whether an email shared by

Ms Masri's son was evidence in the claim. I confirmed this was not evidence but rather an exchange of correspondence between the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and Ms Masri's son to which the insurer had access. 7. It was further confirmed that Ms Masri's son Ahmad, was present in the room with her as a support person. He accepted his role and confirmed he understood he was not to answer questions unless directly addressed in the conference. He further agreed his role included assisting his mother with the hard copy bundle of documents. 8. Mr Wilson asked Ms Masri if she was aware that any assessment of damages may preclude her from receiving Centrelink benefits for a period of time should I assess damages for economic loss. She agreed she understood this potential outcome and confirmed she wished to proceed with her claim.

1. Ms Masri was travelling in the front passenger's seat in a vehicle driven by her daughter.
2. They were travelling along Noble Avenue in Greenacre when the insured's vehicle approached the intersection on Northcote Road on the righthand side. The vehicle was a truck which travelled through the intersection without giving way and collided with the driver's side of Ms Masri's daughter's vehicle.
3. The impact was signficant which traumatised Ms Masri. She was conveyed by ambulance to Bankstown Hospital where investigations were carried out which revealed a fracture on the left fourth and fifth rib and a sternal fracture.

(a) is Ms Masri a reliable witness?

(b) what is the nature and extent of Ms Masri's accident-related injuries and disabilities?

(c) has Ms Masri suffered a loss of earning capacity which is productive of economic loss?

1. Ms Masri was born in Lebanon. She has four brothers and four sisters. She was the youngest. She married at age 15 years and travelled to Australia with her husband. She has nine children all born in Australia.
2. She has never worked. When providing histories to medical professionals, she has given vague information or declined or been unwilling to give details of her family dynamics. It appears she and her husband at some stage separated but he did accompany her on a trip to Lebanon in June 2023.
3. She did not attend school and has not enrolled in any education or studies. She is illiterate as she cannot read or write and has not learnt English. In the assessment conference she did understand and answer very simple questions in English.
4. She has never obtained a driver's licence and has difficulty with numbers.
5. Her medical records list a long history of severe pain and restrictive symptoms both physical and psychological which is well documented in the material provided by her former lawyers and in the insurer's material.
6. Notwithstanding this written evidence recording her past medical history, Ms Masri denied any past symptoms to many of the doctors engaged to give opinion on her accident-related injuries and disabilities.
7. Dr Wayne Mason was engaged by the insurer to interview Ms Masri, review documentation and give opinion about Ms Masri's psychological injuries caused by the accident. Dr Mason describes Ms Masri as an entirely inconsistent historian. When the doctor asked her about her general practitioner's medical records she could not remember her past history and could not confirm if the records were accurate.
8. She denied consulting psychiatrist Dr Ishrat Ali in 2017 and was unable to explain Dr Magedy Hawi's diagnosis of major depression in the Greenoaks Medical Centre clinical notes.
9. Included in these clinical notes dated 14 October 2017, was an assessment carried out by Housing Pathways which included a diagnoses by Dr Hawi that Ms Masri suffered from depression and severe lumbar disc disease which limited her mobility. She required assistance with cooking, shopping, cleaning and transport. The assessment records note

Ms Masri was currently supported by a full-time carer. 10. Due to a dispute about her whole person impairment (WPI), Ms Masri was referred to the Commission where Medical Assessor Woo carried out an interview and reported she was reluctant or unable to provide information about her previous medical history claiming she has a poor memory. The Medical Assessor reports her long history of anxiety depression which she tends to ignore. 11. When Medical Assessor Canaris was asked to comment on Ms Masri's consistency, he says "I note multiple inconsistencies particularly involving her inability to provide basic biographical information and her inability to respond to questions relating to orientation coupled with her ability to name her ex-husband and all her children while providing me with an age range". 12. Ms Masri's legal representative arranged for her to be examined by consultant psychistrist

Dr Mukesh Kumar on 20 February 2023 for the purpose of a medico-legal report. The doctor was provided with documentation which included the general practitioner's clinical notes. 13. When asked by Dr Kumar about her pre-accident medical history, she denied any past mental illness. 14. With the assistance of the interpreter, Ms Masri was asked questions by Mr Wilson, the insurer's barrister. To questions focused on her past medical history, Ms Masri could not recall the housing assessment application dated 14 October 2017. This was completed by

Dr Hawi which sets out her medical condition including lumbar disc disease and depression. The doctor describes her condition as severe lower back pain, poor mood and low self-esteem. 15. She said she could not remember she needed full-time care before the accident, and was unable to carry out activities of daily living. These comments are included in the general practitioner's clinical notes. 16. She could not remember seeing Dr Mason. She had no memory of any health issues she may have had before the accident. She avoided answering any questions about her family or past personal history. 17. I am mindful Ms Masri was not born in an English speaking country. She is illiterate. She has lived a simple life and as she told me, the burden of raisng nine children. The only English words she spoke in the assessment conference was "yes" and "no". 18. The insurer took issue with Ms Masri's failure to disclose her pre-accident medical conditions. The written evidence available to me reveal her failure to not only disclose her long histories of both physical and psychological symptoms and treatment, but denied she suffered from these ailments pre-accident. 19. Further, the insurer took issue with the inconsistencies between Ms Masri's denial of her significant health issues before the accident, and her deliberate exaggerations of her symtoms and disabilities post accident. 20. In addition, the insurer suggested to Ms Masri she was not capable of working before the accident as she was unable to care for herself and needed a full-time carer to carry out her activities of daily living. She disagreed with this proposition. 21. My impression of Ms Masri at the assessment conference was, she deliberately avoided answering any questions which may impact on her claim for damages for economic loss noting she is not entitled to damages for non-economic loss. 22. My impression is supported by her inability to either give an accurate history of her pre-accident medical disabilities to doctors and at times, deny any history of her long standing physical and psychological symptoms requiring extensive treatment. 23. For these reasons I will approach her evidence with caution and will rely on the documentation from the treating professionals and medico-legal experts retained in this matter. I do so in particular to her claims she wanted to work before this accident occurred. The inconsistencies on her presentation to the Medical Assessors and Dr Mason denying her past medical history is yet a further reason not to accept the claimant as a witness of truth. 24. Accordingly, I have come to the view that I have concerns in respect to the reliability of

Ms Masri's evidence and feel I need the comfort of corroborative and objective material when making findings in relation to crucial matters.

What is the nature and extent of Ms Masri's accident-related injuries and disabilities?

1. I do not have a statement from Ms Masri. At the further preliminary conference, I gave her an opportunity to provide me with a statement which she declined to do.
2. Although I do not have the notes from Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital or the ambulance report, Dr Mason provides a summary in paragraph 5 on page 9 of his report. It appears her injury was as a result of a seatbelt, causing rib and sternal fractures. After investigations were carried out, she refused admission to the hospital and was discharged into the care of her son.
3. The Medical Assessors had the advantage of all available documentation. Medical Assessor Woo accepted Ms Masri suffered a fractured sternum and rib, together with soft tissue injuries to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and left and right shoulders. He assessed WPI of 6%.
4. Medical Assessor Canaris assessed Ms Masri's psychological injuries as an exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia) with anxious distress and assessed WPI of 6%.
5. As neither of these assessments give a greater than 10% WPI, Ms Masri is not entitled to damages for non-economic loss.
6. The insurer engaged Dr Tony Antoun to review documentation. He concluded Ms Masri sustained soft tissue injuries only.
7. Dr Mason opined Ms Masri's pre-existing major depressive disorder continued after the accident. He acknowleged as a consequence of the accident, she described symptoms which were consistent with an acute stress disorder. The doctor believes this condition resolved into an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood which is superimposed upon major depressive disorder.
8. Dr Mason concluded that due to the multiple inconsistencies noted in the history provided by her, it is entirely questionable if Ms Masri had sustained any ongoing psychiatric condition caused by the accident.
9. Ms Masri's former legal representative briefed Dr Jonathan Herald to give a medico-legal opinion on her physical injuries sustained in the accident. Dr Herald assessed Ms Masri's injuries in line with Medical Assessor Woo, although his WPI assessment of 19% is significantly higher than Medical Assessor Woo.
10. Although Dr Kumar had the advantage of the general practitioner's notes, he makes no reference to these. His diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression has limited benefit to me supported by his WPI assessment of 27% which is substantially higher than the independent medical assessor's conclusion of 6%.
11. I am guided by the independent assessments and accept Ms Masri suffered soft tissue injuries to her spine and shoulders and exacerbated pre-accident psychological injuries caused by the accident.
12. The extent of her accident-related injuries manifest as an increase in the need for personal care by family members, social isolation with increased back and shoulder pain.

Has Ms Masri suffered a loss of earning capacity which is productive of economic loss?

1. Ms Masri lodged an application for damages under common law on 10 May 2022. Her former lawyers filed submissions at paragraph 7, acknowledge that she initially gave instructions not to advance a claim for economic loss as to prevent a Centrelink recovery which will reduce her damages. However, because the WPI assessments resulted in no entitlement to damages for non-economic loss, she decided to resume her claim for economic loss.
2. Ms Masri is 67 years old, turning 68 at the end of this year. There is no dispute, Ms Masri has never worked. She has never been in paid work. Her Centrelink file requested by her former lawyers range from 30 June 2009 to 30 June 2025. In this period she has been in receipt of a disability support pension, newstart allowance, jobseeker payments, and carer payments.
3. When asked about the period her disability support pension was cancelled, Ms Masri agreed this occurred because she travelled to Lebanon for four months. Apart from this concession, she could not recall any other details of her receipt of Centrelink benefits.
4. When asked about jobseeker, she told me she was looking for work. Mr Wilson put to her, a requirement of jobseeker is to apply for work which she deliberately avoided and instead, applied to have the disability support pension reinstated as there is not requirement to look for work. She disagreed with this proposition.
5. I have reviewed the Centrelink file which reveals an attempt to encourage Ms Masri to work part-time. She reported to the officer on or around 18 April 2017 she had no work goals.
6. On 15 March 2019, she underwent a further assessment due to a change of circumstances with Centrelink. Her condition is noted as spinal disorder, lupus, and psychol/psychiatric disorder. She reported poor memory, low self-esteem/confidence, difficulty sleeping, socially withdrawn, difficulty with concentration and memory. She told the officer she did not engage in household tasks. She could only stand for four to five minutes. It was noted her personal factors have a high impact on her ability to work, obtain work or look for work.
7. Turning to the medical opinion on Ms Masri's earning capacity, Dr Herald gives no opinion on her work capacity noting only she has never worked.
8. Under the heading 'Employability', Dr Kumar states she is unable to work but gives no reasoning for this comment.
9. Dr Mason agreed Ms Masri was unable to work before the accident and that she will continue to be unable to work, neither of which is due to the motor accident.
10. There is no objective evidence which supports the submission, Ms Masri had a capacity to work before the accident. There is no objective evidence to support her claim she was looking for work before the accident. She told me in the assessment conference, she had applied for a job cooking. However, without any supporting objective evidence of this claim, I do not accept she had applied for work, or was offered work, prior to the accident.
11. She underwent multiple further assessments at Centrelink for a change of circumstances all of which demonstrate her physical and psychological medical conditions prevented her from working. She was unable to work and was not looking for work.
12. This is not to suggest that Ms Masri did not have a desire to work. She may well have wanted to work. Nevertheless, the Centrelink file, clinical notes and medical opinion support the facts she was unable to work. She had no earning capacity for many years pre-accident.

1. The most likely future circumstance but for the accident is Ms Masri would have continued to be in receipt of Centrelink benefits and had a total incapacity to work. The accident has not changed this position. She continues to receive benefits and continues to have no capacity to engage in employment. She has not suffered a loss of earning capacity which is productive of economic loss.
2. Her claim for economic loss must fail. The assessment for damages for past or future economic loss is $0.
3. There is no claim for costs and disbursements.

1. Pursuant to s 7.36 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 damages are assessed as $0.