Wrongs (Part VBA Claims) Regulations 2025

The Regulations revolve around a few tightly drawn legal and procedural concepts taken from Part VBA of the Wrongs Act 1958: certificate of assessment, stabilised versus unstabilised injury, waiver of assessment of impairment, prescribed claimant information accompanying a certificate, and referral of medical questions to Medical Panels. Each concept is implemented by a standard form and by prescribed fields that mirror the statutory triggers and thresholds.

Certificate of assessment: The Regulations specify two variant certificates. Form 1 (regulation 5; Schedule 1, Form 1) is the certificate for a degree of impairment arising from a stabilised injury. It requires the approved medical practitioner to certify whether they are satisfied that the claimant’s impairment satisfies the statutory “threshold level” (the text of Form 1 directs the practitioner to tick whether the threshold is satisfied for physical and/or psychiatric injury). Form 2 (regulation 6; Schedule 1, Form 2) is the certificate where the injury has not stabilised. That form requires the approved medical practitioner to certify that, while they cannot determine the specific degree of impairment at the time of the subsequent examination, they are satisfied the degree of impairment will satisfy the threshold once the injury stabilises. Form 2 also requires that the date of the first examination be at least six months before the date of the assessment.

Approved medical practitioner and thresholds: The forms repeat statutory rules from the Wrongs Act: the certificate must be provided by an “approved medical practitioner” within the meaning of s 28LB of the Wrongs Act, and must not state the specific degree of impairment. The forms restate the statutory threshold levels for impairment as defined in s 28LB (physical other than psychiatric and spinal injuries, psychiatric injuries, and spinal injuries), and state that psychiatric impairment must exclude psychiatric symptoms arising as a consequence of a physical injury (cross‑references to s 28LJ in the Wrongs Act appear in Forms 1 and 2).

Agreement to waive assessment of impairment and prescribed claimant information: Regulation 7 prescribes the information a claimant must provide when they seek to waive an assessment of impairment under s 28LO(1A) of the Act, and prescribes Form 3 as the instrument for that waiver. Regulation 8 prescribes the information a claimant must provide when serving a copy of a certificate of assessment on a respondent under s 28LT(2), and prescribes Form 4 as the prescribed claimant information form. The listed fields in regs 7 and 8 are extensive and largely identical, covering contact and identifying details, incident timing and description, injury particulars, non‑economic loss description, reports relied upon, and treating medical practitioner details.

Respondent obligations and Medical Panel referral: Regulation 9 prescribes the information a respondent must provide to a Medical Panel when referring a medical question under s 28LZA(1)(a)(ii) of the Wrongs Act and prescribes Form 5 for that notice. The information includes respondent contact details, the date the respondent received the certificate, any representative’s contact details, the claimant’s statement of claim (if provided to the respondent), and a copy of Form 4 received from the claimant. Form 5 also requires attachments (certificate of assessment, copy of Form 4, and statement of claim if available) and certification that the claimant has been advised the respondent has referred the issue to a Medical Panel.

Timing and deemed acceptance: The forms and their notes re‑state statutory timings. Forms 3 and 4 include explicit notes that the respondent must respond in writing within 60 days (Form 3 cites s 28LO(2); Form 4 cites s 28LW(1)). Form 4’s note also reminds readers that if the respondent fails to respond in writing within 60 days, they are deemed to have accepted the assessment (citing s 28LW(4) of the Act). These timing rules are key procedural fences around the information exchange.

Interactions with statute and regulation architecture: The Regulations rely on and restate definitional and procedural content from the Wrongs Act (notably s 28LB definitions and s 28LJ limitation on psychiatric impairment), and are made under the explicit power in s 28LZP. The Endnotes indicate the Regulations will sunset after 10 years under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and that style and interpretative consequences flow from the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984.

In short, the main concepts are standardised documentary forms, prescribed fields of information tied to statutory triggers in the Wrongs Act, a tightly managed timing regime, and procedural requirements for medical certification that exclude stating specific degrees of impairment and require approved medical practitioners.

The Regulations create obligations and informational entitlements that affect a number of defined actors. The immediate parties are claimants (people seeking to make Part VBA claims under the Wrongs Act), respondents (the parties whom claimants nominate as proper respondents), approved medical practitioners who produce certificates, and Medical Panels that may be asked to determine medical questions. Legal representatives of claimants and respondents are also affected because forms provide separate parts for legal representatives’ details and permit signatures by legal representatives.

Claimants: The Regulations require claimants who elect to waive or to serve an assessment certificate to supply prescribed information in the specific format of Form 3 (agreement to waive assessment) or Form 4 (claimant prescribed information form) (regs 7-8, Schedule 1 Forms 3 and 4). Claimants must set out incident details, injury and non‑economic loss particulars, reports they intend to rely on, and details of medical practitioners who have treated the claimant. The forms also require claimant signature or signature by the claimant’s legal representative (Forms 3 and 4, Part 9).

Respondents: Respondents are the immediate recipients of the claimant’s certificate and prescribed information and are obliged by the Wrongs Act (as reflected in these forms) to respond within statutory timeframes. The Regulations prescribe what respondents must provide if they refer a medical question to a Medical Panel (Form 5) and what information must be attached to that referral (Form 5, Part 5). Regulation 9 prescribes the information a respondent must provide to the Medical Panel and prescribes Form 5 for that purpose. Form 4 and the accompanying note remind respondents that failure to respond within 60 days may result in deemed acceptance under s 28LW(4) of the Act.

Approved medical practitioners: Forms 1 and 2 require that the certificate be provided by an “approved medical practitioner” as defined in s 28LB of the Wrongs Act. The forms require the practitioner to certify whether the threshold is satisfied and to provide brief descriptions of the injury or psychiatric injury assessed. Both forms explicitly prohibit stating the specific degree of impairment and restate several statutory definitions and thresholds (Schedule 1, Forms 1 and 2).

Medical Panels: Regulation 9 implements what must be supplied when a respondent refers a medical question to a Medical Panel under s 28LZA(1)(a)(ii) of the Wrongs Act, and Form 5 structures the referral and required attachments. The Panel’s role is not detailed in these Regulations, but the instrument explicitly links the prescribed referral information to Medical Panel processes created by the Wrongs Act.

Legal representatives and other parties: The forms provide spaces for legal representatives’ contact details and permit legal representative signatures. Form 3 and Form 4 may be expanded to list multiple respondents and multiple treating medical practitioners, creating workflow and recordkeeping implications for law firms and clinics.

Administrative and regulatory actors: The Governor in Council made the Regulations under s 28LZP of the Wrongs Act (regulation 2). The Endnotes show the Regulations will sunset after ten years under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, imposing a temporal horizon for re‑evaluation. The Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 guidance in the Endnotes affects how the forms and headings are to be read as part of the Statutory Rule.

In practical terms, claimants and respondents bear the direct compliance costs of producing, serving and responding to the prescribed forms within the statutory timeframes. Approved medical practitioners bear instructions on certificate content and must avoid specifying numerical impairment degrees. Legal representatives will likely manage adherence to form‑content and timing requirements on behalf of their clients.

The Regulations focus on specifying duties of disclosure and form content rather than creating substantive rights or new penalties. Duties flow from the Wrongs Act and are given procedural shape here.

Duty to provide prescribed claimant information: Regulation 7 prescribes the information a claimant must provide when agreeing to waive an assessment of impairment under s 28LO(1A) of the Wrongs Act and prescribes Form 3. The items listed (reg 7(1)(a)-(q)) form a duty to compile and present identity, contact, incident, injury, non‑economic loss and treating practitioner information. Regulation 8 performs the same function for the copy of a certificate of assessment served on a respondent (prescribes the same list and Form 4 for purposes of s 28LT(2)).

Duty to respond within 60 days: The forms include notes that implement the Act’s timing duties. Form 3 cites section 28LO(2) of the Wrongs Act, which requires a respondent who has received Form 3 to respond in writing within 60 days. Form 4 cites section 28LW(1) which requires a respondent on whom a copy of a certificate is served (with required claimant information) to respond in writing within 60 days, and notes that failure to respond within 60 days results in the respondent being deemed to have accepted the assessment under s 28LW(4). These timing duties create the risk that an administrative lapse on the respondent’s side will be treated as procedural acceptance of the assessment.

Duty on approved medical practitioners: Forms 1 and 2 require certification by an “approved medical practitioner” (as defined under s 28LB of the Wrongs Act) and prohibit stating the specific degree of impairment. Form 2 adds a duty to record that the date of the first examination was at least six months before the date of the assessment. The forms also require brief descriptions of the assessed injury and psychiatric injury (as applicable).

Duty on respondent when referring to a Medical Panel: Regulation 9 prescribes the information a respondent must provide when referring a medical question to a Medical Panel pursuant to s 28LZA(1)(a)(ii) of the Wrongs Act. Form 5 formalises the requirement to attach the certificate, the claimant’s Form 4, and the statement of claim (if provided). Form 5 also requires the respondent certify they have advised the claimant of the Medical Panel referral.

Right to seek Medical Panel determination: The Regulations preserve the respondent’s procedural right to refer a medical question to a Medical Panel by prescribing Form 5 and the information the Panel must receive. The respondent’s right to refer is expressed through the mechanism of prescribed notice and attachments.

Right not to disclose numerical degree: The Regulations enforce the statutory right of claimants (and the broader evidentiary regime) that the certificate must not state the specific degree of impairment; the forms emphasise that prohibition for practitioners (Forms 1 and 2).

Record and service rights: The forms provide for signatures and dates and create a recordable exchange of information. The forms impose on parties the obligation to keep and present those records as part of the Part VBA process. Form 5’s requirement to attach the claimant’s Form 4 and the certificate to a referral to a Medical Panel means the Panel receives the same documentary record the parties exchanged.

No new penalty provisions in the Regulations: The Regulations do not themselves create monetary fines or criminal penalties. Instead they implement the procedural duties and consequences established in the Wrongs Act (for example, the deemed acceptance in s 28LW(4) referenced in Form 4). Enforcement and consequences are therefore taken from the Act; the Regulations function as a prescription of form and content to facilitate the Act’s procedural mechanics.

In sum, the Regulations convert statutory duties under the Wrongs Act into precise documentary obligations: what information must be provided, who must supply it, by whom forms must be signed, the prohibition against stating numerical impairment, and the consequences of failing to meet timing duties (notably the potential for deemed acceptance under the Act).

The Regulations themselves do not specify monetary penalties or criminal sanctions. They instead give content to statutory procedures and to statutory consequences located in the Wrongs Act 1958; enforcement mechanisms and penalties, where relevant, are therefore those provided by the Act and statutory consequence rules referenced in the forms.

Deemed acceptance as a civil consequence: The most concrete enforcement consequence referenced in the Regulations is the statutory deemed acceptance provision in s 28LW(4) of the Wrongs Act. The notes to Forms 3 and 4 explicitly warn that a respondent must respond in writing within 60 days and that failure to do so may result in the respondent being “deemed to have accepted the assessment.” That deemed acceptance is a civil procedural consequence under the Act which the Regulations operationalise by prescribing the form and its timing.

Medical Panel process and documentary obligations: Regulation 9 prescribes the information a respondent must provide to a Medical Panel when referring a medical question under s 28LZA(1)(a)(ii). Form 5 requires attachments and certification that the claimant was advised of the Medical Panel referral. Enforcement in this context is procedural: failure to comply with the prescribed requirements could affect the admissibility or processing of the referral before the Medical Panel, but the Regulations themselves do not set out a specific penalty for non‑compliance; instead any sanction would arise from the Act’s procedures or from an administrative decision whether to accept or reject a referral that does not comply with prescribed content.

Regulatory revocation and sunset: The Regulations revoke prior subordinate instruments (regulation 4) and will sunset ten years after making under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Endnotes). The sunset is a statutory expiry mechanism, not a penalty, but it is an enforcement of legislative housekeeping: the current forms and prescriptions will cease automatically unless remade before the ten‑year point.

Administrative enforcement through proper service and recordkeeping: Practical enforcement of these Regulations will occur through docketing and administrative processes. The forms require dates, signatures and contact details. Parties who do not serve or maintain these forms in the prescribed manner risk adverse procedural findings under the Wrongs Act (for example, a respondent’s failure to respond within 60 days).

No criminal sanctions or fines in the instrument: The Regulations do not create new criminal offences, fee provisions or civil penalties. Any disciplinary consequences for medical practitioners would derive from their professional obligations and from the Wrongs Act’s approval process for medical practitioners (Forms 1 and 2 reference the need for an “approved medical practitioner” as per s 28LB), but those professional enforcement mechanisms are outside the text of these Regulations.

In short, the Regulations enforce compliance by specifying documentary forms, timing obligations and required attachments, and by pointing to statutory consequences in the Wrongs Act , in particular the deemed acceptance rule , rather than by creating new penalty clauses within the Statutory Rule itself.

The Regulations are expressly made under section 28LZP of the Wrongs Act 1958 (regulation 2) and operate as subordinate rules that give procedural effect to Part VBA of that Act. The instrument repeatedly cross‑refers to the Wrongs Act for definitions, thresholds and procedural consequences. Key cross‑references and interactions are as follows.

Wrongs Act 1958: The Regulations implement and operationalise multiple provisions of the Act. Regulation 5 ties Form 1 to s 28LN; regulation 6 ties Form 2 to s 28LNA; regulation 7 prescribes information “for the purposes of section 28LO(1A)” and prescribes Form 3; regulation 8 prescribes information “for the purposes of section 28LT(2)” and prescribes Form 4; and regulation 9 prescribes information “for the purposes of section 28LZA(1)(a)(ii)” and prescribes Form 5. The forms themselves reference other Act provisions: e.g. Forms 1 and 2 reference s 28LB (definitions of impairment and threshold level) and s 28LJ (the rule excluding psychiatric impairment arising as a consequence of a physical injury). Forms 3 and 4 cite s 28LO(2) and s 28LW(1)/(4) respectively for timing and deemed acceptance consequences. The Regulations therefore do not exist in isolation; their legal effect is realised only within the procedural architecture created by the Wrongs Act.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994: The Endnotes record that these Regulations will sunset ten years after the day of making (Endnotes, general information), citing s 5 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. That statute imposes a statutory expiry and thus interacts by placing a temporal limit on the Regulations’ continued force unless remade or extended under the relevant provisions.

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984: The Endnotes discuss style changes and interpretative consequences under the ILA. The Endnotes specify that headings, examples, notes and punctuation form part of the Statutory Rule where the rule is made on or after 1 January 2001 (Endnotes, Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984). That interaction means the forms, notes and headings included in this Statutory Rule have legal effect as part of the instrument, which affects how the prescribed forms and their notes are read and applied.

Professional regulation and medical approval schemes: The forms repeatedly require certification by an “approved medical practitioner” within the meaning of s 28LB of the Wrongs Act (Schedule 1, Forms 1 and 2). The Regulations themselves do not define the approval process for medical practitioners; that approval is a construct of the Act. Interaction with medical registration and professional regulation is therefore implicit: practitioners must be “approved” under the Act’s scheme, and they must comply with the content limitations (e.g. not stating a numeric degree of impairment). Any disciplinary interplay between the statutory scheme and professional regulators is not set out in these Regulations but is a foreseeable cross‑system interaction.

Civil litigation rules and evidence: By standardising what must be produced and what may not be stated (e.g. the prohibition on specifying the degree of impairment), these Regulations affect the evidentiary materials that appear in Part VBA claims. The forms require that the claimant supply a copy of the statement of claim to the respondent if it has been provided (Form 5 requests the claimant’s statement of claim where available), which interfaces with civil pleading and disclosure practices. The Regulations do not alter court procedure directly, but they shape the pre‑litigation and early litigation documentary record that courts and tribunals will see.

Privacy and data handling: The forms require extensive personal information , names, addresses, telephone numbers, emails, dates of birth and medical practitioner contact details. While these Regulations do not directly regulate privacy, they create data collection and transmission obligations that will engage the privacy regime (Commonwealth and State privacy laws and professional confidentiality obligations), a practical interaction that parties will need to manage although it is not detailed in the instrument.

Prior subordinate instruments: Regulation 4 revokes the Wrongs (Part VBA Claims) Regulations 2015 and its 2016 amendment. That revocation interacts with prior administrative practice and case law that relied on the prior instruments; going forward, only the current Regulations and the Wrongs Act govern procedures.

In short, these Regulations interface tightly with the Wrongs Act for substance, with the Subordinate Legislation Act for temporal limits, with the Interpretation of Legislation Act for statutory reading rules, and with professional and privacy regimes in practice. The Regulations operate as a bridge between statutory rules in the Act and the practical exchange of documents in the Part VBA claims process.

The Regulations set out a clean instrument with minimal internal amendment history as of the version provided. The statutory rule itself is Version No. 001, made on 15 April 2025 and in operation from 4 May 2025 (regulation 3; Endnotes). The Endnotes and regulation 4 provide the only explicit amendment history that the text records.

Revocation of prior regulations: Regulation 4 revokes the Wrongs (Part VBA Claims) Regulations 2015 (S.R. No. 31/2015) and the Wrongs (Part VBA Claims) Amendment Regulations 2016 (S.R. No. 1/2016). The Explanatory details in the Endnotes record this revocation as reg 4: S.R. No. 31/2015 as amended by S.R. No. 1/2016 (Explanatory details 1-2). The revocation means the 2015/2016 instruments are no longer in force from the commencement date of these Regulations, and their forms and prescriptions have been replaced by Forms 1-5 in Schedule 1 of the 2025 Regulations.

No subsequent amendments recorded: The Table of Amendments in the Endnotes states “There are no amendments made to the Wrongs (Part VBA Claims) Regulations 2025 by statutory rules, subordinate instruments and Acts.” That statement indicates that, as of the version date (4 May 2025), no statutory rule or act has amended this instrument since it was made.

Sunset provision: Although not an amendment as such, the Endnotes record that the Regulations will sunset ten years after the day of making (15 April 2035) under s 5 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. This is an automatic temporal limitation that will remove the Regulations from the statute book unless they are remade or extended under the Subordinate Legislation Act prior to the sunset date. The Endnotes contain this as a legislative housekeeping note and it is part of the instrument’s lifecycle.

Interpretation Act style amendments: The Endnotes also address interpretative and style changes authorised by the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984, including that headings, notes and punctuation form part of the Statutory Rule (Endnotes, Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984). Those are not amendments to the Regulations’ content but affect how the instrument is read and operated.

Document versions and numbering: The instrument is labeled Version No. 001 and S.R. No. 18/2025. No earlier versions of this particular Statutory Rule are present in the text. The Endnotes provide cross‑references to the earlier revoked instruments (S.R. No. 31/2015 and S.R. No. 1/2016), which should be consulted if one needs to trace prior procedural forms or compare changes introduced in 2025.

Practical implication of the amendment history: For practitioners, the revocation of the 2015/2016 instruments means the 2025 Forms must replace any prior templates or standard operating procedures. The absence of amending instruments to date suggests the form content is intended as a self‑contained, stable procedural set for the 10‑year span to sunset.

The Regulations as supplied do not contain any case law, judicial decisions or litigation record. The instrument’s Endnotes and Table of Amendments record no judicial history or amending court decisions. There are three relevant points to note for readers seeking litigation context.

No cases or tribunal decisions cited in the text: The Regulations and Schedule are administrative in nature and present forms and prescribed information; they do not cite or summarise any court decisions. The text contains no references to past litigation interpreting the forms or the procedural rules.

No recorded appeals or judicial review in the instrument: The Endnotes and Table of Amendments make no reference to any judicial review, statutory interpretation litigation, or decisions that have altered the forms. The absence of such references in the Statutory Rule means any litigation concerning the operation or interpretation of these specific forms does not appear in the instrument itself.

Reliance on Wrongs Act for legal context: Where litigation matters would arise (for example, disputes about the effect of deemed acceptance under s 28LW(4), uncertainty over whether a medical certificate satisfies statutory requirements, or challenges to a Medical Panel referral), the relevant primary legal content and litigation precedent would be found in the Wrongs Act and any case law interpreting Part VBA and Medical Panel determinations. The Regulations do not reproduce or summarise that jurisprudence; they simply prescribe the form and content standard for the procedural steps.

Practical advice for litigators and researchers: Because the Regulations are procedural and documentary, litigation risks and precedents will centre on the Wrongs Act provisions cited in the forms (e.g. ss 28LN, 28LNA, 28LO, 28LT, 28LZA, 28LW, 28LB, 28LJ). For any contested interpretation of the forms’ legal effects (for example the meaning of “approved medical practitioner” or the scope of “deemed acceptance”), practitioners will need to consult Part VBA of the Wrongs Act and any subsequent judicial decisions applying those provisions. The Regulations themselves do not report any litigation history.

In short, the Statutory Rule contains no internal litigation history or judicial gloss. Any litigation history relevant to the operation of these forms will be external and located in cases and tribunal decisions interpreting the Wrongs Act and its Part VBA mechanisms; the Regulations function as the current prescribed procedural template.

The Regulations present a number of concrete procedural and evidential traps that practitioners should watch for. These are not speculative risks; they derive directly from the text of the forms and the statutory cross‑references they include.

Deemed acceptance by inaction: The forms and notes reiterate statutory timing rules requiring respondents to respond in writing within 60 days (Forms 3 and 4). Form 4 explicitly warns that if a respondent fails to respond within 60 days, they are “deemed to have accepted the assessment” under s 28LW(4) of the Wrongs Act. The practical consequence is that an administrative oversight by a respondent or their representative (for example, failing to diarise the receipt date, misplacing the document, or failing to reply) can have substantive procedural effects. The Regulations provide the form; the statutory consequence is in the Act, but the linkage means parties must carefully capture and record receipt dates.

Certificates must not state the specific degree of impairment: Forms 1 and 2 emphasise that the certificate “must not state the specific degree of impairment.” Practitioners and medical practitioners who attempt to include numeric degrees of impairment on the certificate risk producing a certificate that is non‑compliant with the prescribed form. Such non‑compliance could lead to objections by the other party or a Medical Panel refusing to treat the document as a proper certificate under the Act. The prohibition is explicit in Forms 1 and 2.

Approved medical practitioner requirement: Both certificate forms state the certificate “must be provided by a medical practitioner who is an approved medical practitioner within the meaning of section 28LB.” The Regulations do not define the approval process; the relevant approval criteria and registrar are in the Wrongs Act. Practitioners must verify a medical practitioner’s approved status before relying on the certificate. Using a non‑approved practitioner could render the certificate defective for Part VBA purposes.

First examination timing for unstabilised injuries: Form 2 requires that “the date of the first examination of the person seeking an assessment must be at least 6 months before the date of this assessment.” If the practitioner preparing a Form 2 cannot satisfy that timing requirement, the certificate may not comply with the prescribed form’s conditions. That six‑month rule is a strict timing trap that may catch treating practitioners and claimants who seek early certification.

Information completeness and privacy risk: Forms 3 and 4 require extensive personal and medical details, including date of birth and treating practitioner contact details. Parties must ensure they have proper consent and data‑handling practices; the Regulations do not provide guidance on privacy or consent. Failure to manage these private data flows properly may create practical privacy and professional risks, though the Regulations themselves do not impose privacy sanctions.

Form attachment and Medical Panel referral requirements: Form 5 requires attachments (certificate, copy of Form 4, and statement of claim if received) and contains a certification that the claimant has been advised of the referral. A respondent who attempts to refer a medical question without attaching the required documents or without advising the claimant may risk procedural challenge of the referral or delay by the Medical Panel. The Regulations prescribe the content and attachments; omission risks procedural deficiency.

Duplicative or inconsistent respondent lists: Forms 3 and 4 allow and encourage listing multiple respondents with reasons why each is a proper respondent. In multi‑party claims, inconsistent or poorly drafted “reason why” entries may give rise to contested jurisdictional or party naming disputes. The Regulations create the space for multiple respondents but do not resolve disputes about proper respondents; those are left to the Act and litigation.

No numeric impairment in certificate but threshold tick required: Forms 1 and 2 require the approving practitioner to indicate satisfaction that the impairment “satisfies the threshold level” without stating the numeric degree. This produces a binary certification (satisfies threshold: yes/no) without quantifying impairment. Parties should be aware that this structure is deliberate; claims that rely on a specific percentage for quantification should be managed via other evidence strands, and the certificate itself will not supply a numeric valuation.

Revocation of prior forms: Regulation 4 revokes the 2015 and 2016 instruments. Practitioners who continue using older templates risk non‑compliance. Check that internal templates and file‑management systems have been updated.

Sunset and future uncertainty: The Endnotes record an automatic sunset in ten years (15 April 2035). Legislative and administrative review or replacement can occur at any time prior to sunset; parties should be prepared for potential future changes to the forms.

In sum, the core “gotchas” are: the strict 60‑day response window with deemed acceptance; the prohibition on stating numeric degrees of impairment; the requirement for an “approved” medical practitioner; the six‑month first‑examination rule for unstabilised injuries; required attachments and certification for Medical Panel referrals; privacy and data handling obligations that the forms create but do not govern; and ensuring use of the updated 2025 forms rather than earlier templates.

This section provides a practical, source‑grounded compliance checklist and recommended steps for each class of actor, derived directly from the Regulations and the notes in the Schedule 1 forms.

For claimants (or their legal representatives)

• Use the prescribed forms. If you are seeking to waive assessment of impairment under s 28LO(1A), complete Form 3 (regulation 7, Schedule 1 Form 3). If you are serving a certificate of assessment, ensure the claimant prescribed information accompanies the certificate using Form 4 (regulation 8, Schedule 1 Form 4).

• Populate all prescribed fields. Regulation 7(1) and regulation 8(1) list the precise items required (claimant and representative contact details, date of birth, respondent identity and contact details, reasons for selecting respondents, incident date/time/location and description, injury details, non‑economic loss details, report details, and treating medical practitioner details). Provide full and accurate information to avoid procedural challenge.

• Ensure the certificate is from an approved medical practitioner. Forms 1 and 2 require the certificate be provided by an “approved medical practitioner” within the meaning of s 28LB. Verify the practitioner’s approval status under the Wrongs Act before relying on the certificate.

• Do not expect the certificate to specify a numeric degree of impairment. The certificate must not state the specific degree of impairment (Schedule 1, Forms 1 and 2). Prepare alternative evidence if numeric quantification will be required later.

• Preserve dated service evidence. Service dates trigger the respondent’s 60‑day response obligation (Forms 3 and 4 note the 60‑day limit under ss 28LO(2) and 28LW(1)). Obtain proof of service and diarise response deadlines.

For respondents (or their legal representatives)

• Track receipt dates carefully. The respondent has a statutory duty to respond in writing within 60 days of receiving the claimant’s Form 3 or the certificate with Form 4 (Forms 3 and 4 notes citing ss 28LO(2) and 28LW(1)). Failure to respond within 60 days may result in deemed acceptance under s 28LW(4) (Form 4 note).

• When referring medical questions to a Medical Panel, use Form 5 and attach required documents. Regulation 9 prescribes the information the respondent must provide to the Medical Panel and prescribes Form 5. Form 5 requires attaching the claimant’s certificate, a copy of Form 4 received from the claimant, and the statement of claim if received. Include these attachments and complete Part 6 certification that the claimant has been advised of the referral (Schedule 1, Form 5).

• Keep records of correspondence. Record dates on Form 5 (receipt of the certificate and of Form 4) and preserve copies of the attachments. These items will form the Panel’s documentary base.

For medical practitioners

• Confirm “approved” status. Only an “approved medical practitioner” within the meaning of s 28LB may supply Forms 1 or 2. Ensure you have the requisite approval before issuing the certificate.

• Follow the certificate content rules. Forms 1 and 2 require brief descriptions of the injury and a tick to indicate whether the impairment satisfies the threshold level, but the certificate must not state the numeric degree of impairment. For unstabilised injuries (Form 2) confirm the date of the first examination was at least six months prior to the assessment date. Complete and sign the certificate and include contact details as required.

For Medical Panels and administrative staff

• Require compliance with Form 5’s content and attachments. When processing a referral under s 28LZA(1)(a)(ii), ensure Form 5 includes the respondent’s contact details, the date of receipt of certificate and Form 4, the attachments (certificate, Form 4, statement of claim if available), and the respondent’s certification that the claimant has been advised of the referral (regulation 9, Schedule 1, Form 5).

• Enforce document completeness. Reject or request completion where mandatory fields or attachments are missing, as the Regulations prescribe specific items that must accompany a referral.

Practical operational steps for all parties

• Update templates and training. Replace older 2015/2016 templates with the 2025 forms and train intake staff to use the updated forms. Regulation 4 revoked earlier instruments, so using old forms risks non‑compliance.

• Implement a receipt and diary system. Because statutory timings (60 days) produce substantive consequences (deemed acceptance), implement systems that capture service dates, convert them to response deadlines, and escalate non‑routine cases for immediate action.

• Manage privacy and consent. The forms require detailed personal and medical data. Ensure you have lawful authorisation to share the data and that your data handling practices comply with applicable privacy obligations, even though the Regulations do not themselves prescribe privacy safeguards.

• Cross‑check Wrongs Act definitions and thresholds. Forms 1 and 2 repeat the Act’s definitions of “impairment” and “threshold level” (Schedule 1, Forms 1 and 2). Confirm your understanding of those statutory definitions in the relevant sections of the Wrongs Act when preparing or evaluating certificates and responses.

• Consider alternative evidence strategies. Because the certificate will not disclose a numeric impairment degree, parties may need to obtain supplementary medical reports or expert evidence for valuation or quantum phases of disputes.

• Confirm service methods for proof. Ensure that proof of service accords with the relevant rules or established practice for serving documents in civil claims under the Wrongs Act and applicable court rules so service dates are indisputable.

By following the above steps and sticking closely to the forms and prescribed fields set out in regulations 5-9 and Schedule 1, parties will align documentary practice with the procedural mechanics the Regulations mandate. The critical operational controls are ensuring the approved‑practitioner status, avoiding numeric impairment statements on certificates, meeting the 60‑day response deadlines, and including all attachments when referring matters to a Medical Panel.