Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021

The Rules directly bind every participant in PIC proceedings. Claimants (workers, injured persons, dependants, police officers), insurers (including SIRA in its dual regulatory and nominal-insurer capacities), employers, self-insurers, third-party defendants in work-injury-damages matters, and their Australian legal practitioners or agents must comply with lodgment, service, evidence and timing obligations.

Medical assessors, merit reviewers, non-presidential members, panels and the President exercise the procedural powers conferred. The principal registrar controls the Registry and issues certificates. The Authority (SIRA) may intervene in merit review and panel review proceedings (rules 114(3A), 127(3A)).

Persons under legal incapacity are affected through mandatory tutor or appointed-representative regimes (rules 64A, 97) that impose personal attendance, best-interests and confidentiality duties. Witnesses, expert report writers and translators face indirect obligations: statements must be signed, experts must know procedural directions, translators must declare accuracy (rule 18).

ECM-system users are restricted to parties, practitioners or authorised agents (rule 15). Producers of documents under notices or directions (including non-parties) must comply or object on recognised grounds, and may be ordered to pay additional conduct money (rules 42, 53).

The Rules therefore affect a wide cohort: injured individuals, corporate and statutory insurers, legal representatives, medical and allied-health experts, interpreters, investigators, and the internal decision-makers and administrators of the PIC itself.

Duties

• Timely and complete disclosure: Parties must lodge and serve all documents relied upon with the application or reply (rule 67A), limited to 500 pages (rule 67B). Additional documents may be introduced only with consent, leave, or within strict cut-offs (rule 67C). Surveillance material must be served in full even if only excerpts are lodged (rule 109(2)).
• AI transparency: Written statements must certify no generative AI was used (rule 33A(2)); expert reports must disclose prompts, version, date and compliance if AI was used (rule 33B(2)). Submissions citing AI-generated content must verify accuracy of citations (rule 133C).
• Service and notification: Strict obligations apply to addresses for service (rule 27), change of address (rule 27(5)), joinder (rule 63), mediation applications (rules 87–88) and appeals (rules 123, 126B).
• Certification and verification: Pre-referral certificates (rule 80(2)), statutory declarations for conduct money (rules 30(2), 42), and tutor/appointed-representative certifications of no adverse interest (rules 64A(3), 97(3)) are mandatory.
• Best-interests and attendance: Tutors and appointed representatives must attend, explore settlement, maintain confidentiality and understand the issues (rules 64A, 97).

Rights

• Dispensing and directions: The Commission or President may dispense with Rules or give directions where appropriate (rules 6–7, 69).
• Objection and reply: Detailed objection regimes exist for amendments (rule 20), notices for production (rule 41), directions for production (rule 50), access objections (rule 51) and summonses (rule 57).
• Leave to amend or introduce evidence: Amendments necessary to avoid injustice are permitted (rule 19); additional documents may be allowed if just, quick and cost-effective (rule 67C(4)).
• Expedition and consent orders: Applications for expedition (rule 75) and consent determinations (rule 71) are expressly contemplated.
• Support persons and interpreters: Entitlements exist for support persons (rule 110) and NAATI-certified interpreters (rule 36).
• De-identification and non-publication: Applications may be made under rules 132 and 133D to protect safety, health, wellbeing or administration of justice.

The Rules themselves contain few direct monetary penalties; enforcement occurs through procedural sanctions and by reference to enabling legislation.

Rule 8 treats non-compliance as an irregularity; the Commission may set aside proceedings, steps or decisions. Striking out for want of prosecution or non-compliance is available (rules 9, 77, 80(6)). Failure to lodge a reply in workers compensation or police scheme matters can result in the proceedings being struck out against that respondent (rules 80(6), 118A(5)).

Non-compliance with a direction for production may lead to referral to the Authority for prosecution under s 49(3) of the PIC Act (rule 49(3)(b)(iii)) or costs sanctions under Chapter 7 Part 8 Division 3 of the 1998 Act (rule 41(6)). Failure to comply with a notice for production under s 290(2) of the 1998 Act can trigger prosecution and costs orders (rule 41(6)).

Dismissal grounds under s 54 of the PIC Act are expanded by rule 77 to include failure to prosecute with due despatch, lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, or (in motor accidents) death without probate. Medical and merit-review proceedings inherit these grounds via rules 107, 114 and 127.

ECM misuse or unauthorised access may be restrained by presidential order (rule 15(5)). Failure to certify AI use or to verify citations (rules 33A–33B, 133C) risks the material being given no weight or adverse costs orders under the guiding principle.

Contempt powers, costs orders and referral for prosecution under the enabling Acts therefore constitute the primary enforcement mechanisms. The President’s power to refuse to accept non-compliant documents (rule 17(2)) acts as an immediate gatekeeping sanction.

The Rules are subordinate legislation made under the PIC Act. They expressly incorporate and apply provisions of the PIC Act (especially Part 5 via rules 107, 114, 127), the 1998 Act (ss 290, 327, 351–352), the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (ss 25, 151D, Part 7), the MAC Act (ss 58, 63, 92, 96, 111), the MAI Act (ss 6.23, 7.12–7.15, 7.23–7.27, Schedule 2), the Police Act 1990 (s 199I) and the Police Regulation 2025 (ss 131, 137–140, 147, 157). Rule 4(2) ensures harmony with enabling legislation.

The Interpretation Act 1987 supplies definitions and form-compliance rules (notes to rules 4, 17). The Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) is preserved (rules 23(4), 26(6), 28(4)).

Procedural directions made by the President sit below the Rules (rule 10). The Rules also interact with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 for persons under legal incapacity in work-injury-damages proceedings (rule 91) and with the Civil Procedure Act 2005 definitions (note to rule 64A).

Recent amendments illustrate dynamic interaction: the 2025 and 2026 amendments inserted police-scheme provisions to align with the Police Regulation 2025, while AI rules respond to broader judicial and legislative concern about technology in evidence without amending the PIC Act itself.

The Rules have been amended on at least six occasions since 2021. Key changes include:

• 2022 (170): Inserted rule 133A to permit extensions of appeal time in exceptional circumstances for s 352 appeals and MAI/MAC reviews, responding to practical difficulties with rigid statutory cut-offs.

• 2024 (587): Substituted Division 7.2, introducing the 500-page limit (rule 67B), staged additional-document regime (rule 67C) and power to direct removal of duplicate material (rule 67D). These changes address the increasing volume of electronic material and the need to focus decision-makers on relevant evidence. Surveillance-film rules were tightened (rule 109).

• 2025 (708): The most substantial update. Inserted rules 33A and 33B regulating generative AI in statements and expert reports, reflecting nationwide judicial concern about undisclosed AI hallucination. Added Part 12A and rule 118A for police officer support scheme disputes following legislative creation of that scheme. Amended multiple definitions, reply times, and certification requirements to integrate the new jurisdiction. Inserted rule 133B prohibiting joinder of AI technology to proceedings and rule 133C on AI-generated submissions. Updated rule 37 and 38 to include police proceedings in notice-for-production regimes.

• 2026 (116): Inserted rule 64A imposing detailed tutor duties mirroring the MAI appointed-representative regime (rule 97, itself substituted). Added rule 133D setting out a written-application procedure for non-publication orders under the new s 58A of the PIC Act. Further minor amendments to police-scheme rules and ECM certification provisions.

These amendments were driven by three policy imperatives: (1) managing explosive growth in digital evidence and page counts; (2) responding to emerging technology risks (AI); and (3) expanding the PIC’s jurisdiction to new compensation schemes without creating parallel procedural silos.

Although the Rules are procedural, they have generated appellate litigation on several recurring themes. Presidential decisions refusing leave to appeal interlocutory matters under s 352(3A) of the 1998 Act have been challenged on jurisdictional grounds; the requirement in rule 123(1)(b)(ii) to particularise the amount in issue has been strictly enforced.

The 500-page limit (rule 67B) and the leave requirement for additional documents (rule 67C) have produced disputes about whether the Commission may refuse to read material that exceeds the limit or was lodged late. Panels have declined to admit late surveillance footage unless “exceptional circumstances” exist (rule 109(1)), leading to arguments that the rule impermissibly narrows the statutory obligation to conduct a fresh review.

AI provisions (rules 33A, 33B, 133B, 133C) are too recent for reported decisions, but analogous cases in other jurisdictions concerning undisclosed use of large-language models in affidavits suggest that breach may result in evidence being rejected or costs ordered on an indemnity basis. The requirement to disclose prompts (rule 33B(2)(c)) raises potential intellectual-property and confidentiality concerns for firms using proprietary AI tools.

The interaction between rule 80(2) (pre-referral certificate that the dispute is not barred by Chapter 7 Part 4 of the 1998 Act) and the Commission’s power to determine its own jurisdiction has been tested; courts have held that a defective certificate does not deprive the Commission of jurisdiction if the factual preconditions are otherwise met.

Controversy also surrounds the President’s power to de-identify or redact publishable decisions (rule 132). Balancing open justice against worker privacy continues to generate interlocutory applications, particularly in sensitive psychological-injury or sexual-harassment-related claims.

Most practitioners miss the interaction between the 500-page limit (rule 67B) and the prohibition on introducing evidence not lodged under Division 7.2 (rule 67(2)). Bundles that appear compliant at lodgment can be rendered partly inadmissible if the decision-maker later exercises the rule 67D power to direct removal of duplicates or previously lodged material.

The AI rules contain a subtle trap: rule 33A(3) permits AI-generated annexures or exhibits only if the annexure itself contains a statement that AI was used. A party cannot simply attach an AI-generated medical article without that disclosure. Expert reports that use AI for background research but not for the opinion itself must still contain a negative statement (rule 33B(3)).

Rule 24(2) deems an ECM-lodged document signed if the signatory’s name is printed; however, for appeals under ss 327 or 352 of the 1998 Act or police-scheme appeals, the document is taken to be certified for the statutory purposes. Many lawyers still attach wet-ink signatures unnecessarily, exposing the bundle to objections about duplication.

The “first access order” regime (rules 43, 47(3)(c), 51) is frequently overlooked. A party entitled to first access who objects to the opponent seeing material must do so before the access period expires; failure to object in time can result in the opponent gaining unrestricted access even to privileged documents.

Rule 77(b)(vi) allows dismissal of a motor-accident application if the applicant has died and no grant of probate or letters of administration is provided. This has caught estates that assumed the claim survived automatically.

Finally, the 2-working-day objection periods scattered throughout (rules 20(3), 41(3), 50(5), 51(4)) are unforgiving; missing them can preclude later argument on relevance, privilege or procedural unfairness.

Compliance begins at file opening. Identify the exact proceeding type under rule 5 and the applicable Part (9–13). Use only approved forms published on the PIC website (rule 16). Draft every document with a clear heading identifying the proceeding and its purpose (rule 17(1)(a)).

Before lodgment, paginate consecutively, remove duplicates, index by category and ensure the bundle does not exceed 500 pages (rules 67–67B). For any additional document, serve immediately and lodge in the approved “additional documents” form no later than 3 working days before conference or 14 days before medical assessment (rule 67C(1)).

Serve sealed copies within 7 days of registration on all required parties, using the correct SIRA email or postal address (rules 32, 80(3), 123(2)). Diarise all reply and objection deadlines; the 2-working-day periods for objections to amendments or production notices are easily missed.

For evidence, obtain signed witness statements and expert reports that comply with procedural directions. If any AI tool was used, insert the exact statements required by rules 33A or 33B and retain the prompt log. Surveillance footage must be served in full even if only selected excerpts are lodged.

When seeking leave to amend, lodge a formal written application setting out grounds (rule 20); anticipate a 2-working-day objection. In medical or merit review, consider whether a support person or NAATI interpreter is required and give early notice.

For appeals, prepare an objective chronology that does not advocate (rule 123(1)(b)(vi)); anticipate that the respondent will file a competing chronology (rule 124(4)). If filing out of time, lodge the extension application under rule 133A simultaneously and address the exceptional-circumstances or special-circumstances test explicitly.

Maintain a register of all ECM users and ensure only authorised persons access the system (rule 15). If acting for a person under legal incapacity, obtain the tutor’s or appointed representative’s signed certification before commencing (rules 64A(3), 97(3)) and diarise the duty to notify any adverse interest immediately.

Finally, read the most recent version of the Rules (including all amendment schedules) and any applicable procedural direction before every lodgment. The PIC website’s “forms and rules” page should be checked on the day of filing; addresses and protocols change by presidential notice (rule 11(4)). A short compliance checklist covering page limits, AI certification, service addresses, chronologies and objection deadlines will prevent the majority of avoidable procedural missteps.