What began as a straightforward workplace injury claim was ultimately transformed into a complex and highly contested claim under the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). At the centre of the dispute was a critical legal question: whether the circumstances of the incident satisfied the statutory definition of a “motor vehicle accident.” Through careful legal analysis and strategic reframing, our team advanced a compelling case that the injuries arose from the use or operation of a motor vehicle, opening the pathway to significantly broader entitlements under the CTP scheme.
The client, a 48-year-old truck driver, suffered catastrophic orthopaedic and psychological injuries while unloading motorcycles from a truck without assistance. Liability and contributory negligence were strongly disputed by both the workers compensation and CTP insurers, requiring sustained advocacy and detailed evidentiary preparation. The case involved complex interaction between two compensation regimes, as well as the evaluation of serious injury, long-term incapacity, and substantial past and future economic loss.
Just days before a scheduled District Court trial, and following two unsuccessful mediations, the matter resolved for a substantial sum. Importantly, the settlement was achieved with no reduction for contributory negligence and reflected significant allowances for pain and suffering and loss of income. This outcome underscores the importance of identifying the correct legal pathway and demonstrates our ability to navigate complex statutory frameworks to secure optimal results for seriously injured clients.
In 2023 our 65-year-old client was driving her car along a major Sydney motorway when a truck travelling in the same direction suddenly change lanes. The truck clipped the driver’s side of our client’s car causing it to spin out of control. Our client suffered injuries to her neck, lower back and shoulder. She also developed post-dramatic stress disorder, given the horrifying circumstances of the accident.
We brought a CTP damages claim against the CTP insurer of the truck. The insurer admitted liability and accepted our client’s injuries, restrictions and disabilities, together with her losses.
Our client’s claim, brought pursuant to the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 included claims for non-economic loss (for pain and suffering) and for past and future losses of income. At that stage our client’s whole person impairment for her physical injuries was formally assessed by doctors appointed by the PIC (Personal Injury Commission) at 15%, which beat the threshold of greater than 10%. The insurer appealed and the determination of the closed whole person impairment was reviewed by a Review Panel of three medical specialists. The delegate who referred the matter to the Review Panel was satisfied that there was a reasonable cause to suspect that the medical assessment (as above) was incorrect in a material respect.
Given that both the insurer and our client were at risk on the issue of whole person impairment a compromise was reached which enabled our client’s claim to be settled without having to proceed to a further whole person impairment assessment or an assessment of her damages.
The settlement was an excellent one for our client and included a significant allowance for our client’s legal costs.
George was involved in an unusual motor vehicle accident when he removed a piece of timber, which was chocked up against a wheel of a truck parked on an incline, and upon doing so the truck rolled down. George got caught behind the truck and was crushed against a tree. He sustained numerous fractures to his hips, legs and ankle. He also developed a psychological injury.
As a result of his orthopaedic and psychological injuries George was unable to return to work.
The insurer alleged that the accident was George’s fault and denied liability.
Proceedings were commenced on George’s behalf, however the matter settled very reasonably, with an allowance for past and future economic loss, future treatment, past and future care and for George’s “pain and suffering”.
This was a very unusual and difficult claim
SU’s partner, a very high achieving director of a dance company, was killed late one night in an inner Sydney suburb by a street sweeper as she was crossing the road. There were no witnesses and the driver of the street sweeper was not charged with any driving offence.
SU made a claim for nervous shock and loss of financial dependency.
The insurer denied liability on the basis that there was no evidence that the driver did anything wrong.
The claim was litigated and was very satisfactorily settled, on a compromise basis, at a court ordered mediation.
Our client was an elite athlete and was training for triathlons.
During a bicycle training session, when she and a group of other riders were riding in the breakdown lane of the M4 a truck veered into the breakdown lane and struck a number of the cyclists, including our client. Our client’s coach and mentor tragically was killed in the accident.
Our client suffered a number of orthopaedic injuries. However her main injury was a mild insult to her brain, which has affected her memory, concentration and ability to learn. She has also suffered adverse psychological consequences because of the trauma.
The insurer admitted liability. After settlement negotiations with the insurer our client’s claim was settled for a significant sum.
RA was injured whilst riding with a group of cyclists when he and others were hit by a truck which had crossed into their lane. Tragically one of the elite riders in the group was killed.
RA made a reasonable recovery from his physical and psychological injuries and returned to his pre accident employment but he missed some opportunities for promotion. As a result it was argued he will always be lagging behind what he would have achieved had he not been injured.
His case was settled at an informal settlement conference.
GM is 54 years of age. He was driving his truck for work when the driver of a Ford motor vehicle with 5 occupants, travelling in the opposite direction, crossed into his lane and the vehicles collided.
Tragically, 3 of the occupants of the Ford vehicle were killed. The driver sustained catastrophic brain damage and is now in a vegetive state. The accident was caused by the other driver.
GM sustained serious orthopaedic injuries, but more significantly he developed significant psychiatric injures.
Because of his psychiatric injuries he will never drive a truck. His claim was settled for a considerable sum.
Rachael, 18 years, was driving to her place of work when a ladder fell from a truck in front of her causing her to instinctively swerve to her right which result ina head-on collision with a car coming in the opposite direction.
She suffered a severe brain injury which left her in a coma for several weeks.Fortunately, she made a miraculous recovery and was discharged to her family home where she required only minimal care. She later became independent.
She was able to return to her work as a shop assistant on a part-time basis. She continued to have some difficulties with fatigue and short term memory.
The Third Party insurer, whilst admitting that the driver of the truck was at fault, alleged that she contributed to the accident for not having kept a proper lookout and failing to exercise proper care. The matter was settled out of court for a sizable amount, with no discount for contributory negligence.
We acted for Simon, aged 19, who suffered a burst fracture to his lumbar spine when the car in which he was travelling as a front seat passenger on the main street in Gosford turned right, directly into the path of a truck.
At the time of the accident Simon was studying for a degree in Oral Hygiene and intended to become a dentist. Unfortunately his injuries will now prevent him from ever being able to work as a dentist.
In a quest to find a new career path he joined the NSW Police Force and was due to commence his training in late 2010. He had ambitions of being transferred to the Australian Federal Police and specialising in the detection of computer fraud. The insurance company admitted liability and the claim was settled for a significant sum at an informal settlement conference.
AB was injured when the motorcycle he was riding on a winding narrow country road struck the rear wheel of a prime mover coming around a tight corner in the opposite direction.
The insurer denied liability on the basis that the truck driver could not keep the rear wheels of the prime mover on their correct side of the road because the road was too narrow and the bend was too tight. It also alleged the motorcycle was going too fast for the conditions.
The case went to court but was satisfactorily settled just before the hearing.
Clive aged 36 sustained injury to his ankle when he was struck by an excavator on a work site. The defendant denied liability and proceedings were commenced in the Supreme Court of NSW. The parties participated in an informal settlement conference and the matter was settled out of court with the client receiving a very substantial sum
