Peter Hunt
Consultant
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in BVV v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 496 on 3 October 2025.
The Claimant was involved in a motor accident on 11 March 2024 on the Cumberland Highway. The accident was caused by a hypoglycaemic episode which resulted in him losing control of his vehicle and colliding with four stationary vehicles.
The Insured denied liability to pay the Claimant damages under common law and the Claimant lodged a damages dispute in the Commission.
A “no-fault motor accident” is defined by s 5.1 of MAIA, as follows:
“no-fault motor accident means a motor accident in the State not caused by the fault of the owner or driver of any motor vehicle involved in the accident in the use or operation of the vehicle and not caused by the fault of any other person.”
Section 5.4 limits the ability of the driver in a no-fault accident to recover damages, as follows:
5.4 No recovery of damages for driver who caused accident
(1) There is no entitlement to recover damages because of the operation of this Part in respect of the death of or injury to the driver of a motor vehicle if the motor accident concerned was caused by an act or omission of that driver.
(2) The death of or injury to a person is taken to have been caused by an act or omission of the driver for the purposes of subsection (1) even if—
The Member found that the Claimant was not entitled to Damages under Common Law, for the following reasons:
The decision in BVV provides a useful case study of how liability in single vehicle motor accidents is assessed differently in statutory benefit and common law claims.
The PIC Member found, in a prior decision, that the Claimant was entitled to ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks, because he was injured in a motor accident in NSW and he was not wholly or mostly at fault for his accident. The outcome may have been different if the Claimant had warning that he was at risk of suffering a hypoglycaemic episode whilst driving and decided to drive anyway, but the PIC Member made a factual finding that the episode was unexpected.
In this decision, the PIC Member found that the Claimant was not entitled to recover damages under common law because (a) his injuries were not caused by the fault of another owner or driver, and (b) section 5.4 precluded him, as the driver in a no-fault accident, from recovering damages.
These decisions illustrate that, for the most part, the only chance a driver in a single vehicle motor accident has of receiving compensation is in the statutory benefits arena.
Our case note on the prior decision in BVV can he found here.
If you would like to discuss this case note, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with CTP Practice Group Leader Peter Hunt today.