MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant injured in a motor vehicle accident when he was riding his bicycle and struck a pothole/divot in the road causing him to lose his balance and collide with the motor vehicle being driven by the insured driver; claimant sustained fracture of the right elbow, fracture of the right proximal humerus, multiple soft tissue injuries, and traumatic ulceration to both knees; insurer has conceded claimant's injuries are non-threshold but has disputed liability; TransportNSW and ConnectSydney Pty Ltd were responsible for the maintenance of the road; statement of claim has been issued in the District Court upon both those parties seeking damages; claimant submits the matter be exempted in the interests of justice in order for both claims to be determined concurrently in the jurisdiction of the District Court; submitted on behalf of the claimant the matter should be exempted on discretionary grounds; insurer consents to the application; Held - the matter be exempted under section 7.34 (1)(b) on the grounds a claimant or insurer seeks to proceed against one or more non-CTP parties; rule 99(3) (d) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021; recommendation subsequently approved by the Division Head, as the President's delegate.

Recommendations claim not suitable for assessment

1. Pasquale Romeo (the claimant) was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 11 March 2023 at approximately 8.15am when he was riding his bicycle along Cleveland Street at Surry Hills, when his bicycle struck a pothole/divot in the road causing him to lose his balance and collide with the motor vehicle being driven by the insured driver.
2. The claimant sustained a fracture of the right elbow, fracture of the right proximal humerus, multiple soft tissue injuries, including bruising to the forehead, grazing and bruising to his back. He also suffered a traumatic ulceration to both knees and an injury to his neck.
3. He was taken by ambulance to St Vincent's Hospital, where he was admitted. He was subsequently discharged on 13 March 2023.
4. The insurer has conceded the claimant's injuries are non-threshold but has disputed the whole person impairment assessment of the claimant's injuries and also the issue of liability.
5. The solicitor for the claimant carried out further investigations, and consequently, ascertained the TransportNSW and ConnectSydney Pty Ltd were responsible for the maintenance of the road.
6. On 29 September 2025, a statement of claim was issued on behalf of the claimant in the District Court and served upon TransportNSW and ConnectSydney Pty Ltd.
7. The solicitor for the claimant has lodged an application for discretionary exemption and I note the matter can be exempted under s 7.34(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).
8. I note the matter can be exempted under s 7.34(1)(b) of the MAI Act on the following ground under Rule 99(3)(d) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules):
   • whether a claimant or insurer seeks to proceed against one or more non-CTP parties.
9. I recommend the matter be exempted because in the interest of justice, both claims should be determined concurrently in the jurisdiction of the District Court.

1. Sub-section 7.34 (1)(a) provides that a claim is exempt from assessment under this Division the claim is of a kind specified in the regulations as a claim that is exempt from assessment under this Division.
2. Sub-section 7.34 (1)(b) provides that a claim is exempt from assessment under this Division if a preliminary assessment of the claim has determined (with the approval of the President) that the claim is not suitable for assessment under this Division.
3. Rule 99 of the PIC Rules list the grounds for considering whether the claim is not suitable for assessment as follows:

"99 Consideration of discretionary exemption from claims assessment

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

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

(3) Without limiting the matters that may be considered, the Commission may consider the following -

(a) whether the claim involves complex legal or factual issues, or complex issues in the assessment of the amount of the claim,

(b) whether the claim involves issues of liability, including contributory negligence, fault or causation,

(c) whether a claimant or witness, considered by the Commission to be a material witness, resides outside the State,

(d) whether a claimant or insurer seeks to proceed against one or more non-CTP parties,

(e) whether the insurer alleges that a person has made a false or misleading statement in a material particular in relation to the injuries, loss or damage sustained by the claimant in the accident giving rise to the claim."

1. In this case a number of considerations listed in cl 99 are relevant.
2. The first relevant consideration is under sub-clause 99(2) of the PIC Rules. When determining whether a claim is not suitable for assessment, the Commission must consider the objects of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) and the circumstances of the claim. Section 3 of the PIC Act which refers to the Objects of the MAI Act, enjoins the Commission to be: accessible, professional, and responsive to the needs of all of its users; encourages early dispute resolution; and resolves the real issues in proceedings justly, quickly, cost effectively and with as little formality as possible.
3. In making my findings, I am also mindful of other relevant consideration listed in rule 99 including that the claim potentially involves:
   • complex legal or factual issues, and
   • issues of liability, including issues of contributory negligence, fault or causation.
4. Although I am concerned about the extra delay and legal costs to be experienced by the claimant, on balance I recommend that this claim is exempt from assessment and is not suitable for assessment under the Division 7.6.

1. In making my preliminary assessment recommending that the matter be exempted from assessment, I have had regard to the following:
   • the objects of the PIC Act set out in s 3 which include the quick, cost effective, just, and informal resolution of disputes.
   • the claim involves potential issues of about liability or contributory negligence and conflicting evidence about how the accident occurred, and
   • the claimant seeks to proceed against one or more non-CTP parties.
2. I have determined in my preliminary assessment that this claim is not suitable for assessment under Division 7.6 of the MAI Act.
3. Having made a preliminary assessment of the claim I determine the claim is not suitable for assessment by the Commission under Div 7.6 of the MAI Act. I recommend to the President that the claim be exempt from assessment.
4. In accordance with s 7.34(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, the Division Head (Motor Accident Division) as Delegate of the President, on 9 March 2026, approved Member David Ford's recommendation that the claim is not suitable for assessment.