An Injured Person’s entitlement to statutory benefits ceases at 26 weeks when they are ‘mostly at fault’ for the accident. The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) says that the injured person is mostly at fault when their contributory negligence is “greater than 61%”…
Based on our contributory negligence case summaries, these Guidelines may assist in assessing whether it is likely that the injured person’s contributory negligence exceeds 61%.
An Injured Person’s entitlement to statutory benefits also ceases at 26 weeks when they sustain `minor injuries’. These Guidelines assist in assessing what constitutes a minor physical injury and what constitutes a minor psychiatric injury.
Section 3.39 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) mandates that the Mental Harm provisions in Part 3 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (CLA) apply to the payment of statutory benefits under MAIA in the same way they would apply to an award of damages, “subject to any necessary modifications and to any modifications prescribed by the regulations”.
These Guidelines represent an attempt to apply “necessary modifications” to Part 3 of the CLA so that they apply to claims for statutory benefits. Pending guidance from the Courts or the Dispute Resolution Service, they are Guidelines only and do not represent decided law.
The Supreme Court clarified in AAI Limited v Singh  NSWSC 1300 that s 3.2(5) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 deems the Relevant Insurer liable to pay Statutory Benefits but does not deem the owner or driver to be at fault.
Furthermore, in strong obiter remarks, the Supreme Court in Singh held that the deeming provisions in Part 5 of the Act, relevant to ‘no-fault accidents’, cannot be used to deem a driver “wholly or mostly at fault” in the Statutory Benefits arena.
These Guidelines set out the practical impact of Singh in Statutory Benefit claims arising from single-vehicle accidents, multi-vehicle accidents and pedestrian accidents.
The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and associated Regulation and Guidelines set out the procedure the parties must adhere to in a claim for common law damages. These Guidelines assist in assessing compliance with that procedure.
Unless the claim is exempted from the PIC system, costs are regulated. These Guidelines assist in calculating regulated costs for the assessment of damages, medical assessments, merit reviews, miscellaneous claims assessment and medico-legal fees.
These Guidelines assist in determining the kinds of disputes which may be subject to medical assessment, merit review and miscellaneous claims assessment and the regulated fees available to the parties.
To see what is happening at the PIC coal-face, review our summary of Mostly at Fault decisions.
Pursuant to Div 3.2 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, the Commission has no power to determine disputes involving an exercise of federal jurisdiction, as defined by ss 75 and 76 of the Commonwealth Constitution.
Section 75(iv) provides that a dispute “between States, of between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State” are within the original jurisdiction of the High Court and, therefore, involve an exercise of federal jurisdiction.