In-Depth Analysis of Authentic Judgment

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Wakeling [2025] NSWPIC 179, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: Personal Injury Commission
Presiding Member: Hugh Macken
Cause of Action: Motor Vehicle Accident (Personal Injury Claim for Damages)
Judgment Date: 30 April 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017
Keyword 3: Settlement Approval
Keyword 4: Pre-existing Injury Aggravation
Keyword 5: Economic Loss Calculation
Keyword 6: Non-Threshold Injury

Background:

The Claimant, a 61-year-old woman, was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident on 30 October 2022. The collision resulted in injuries to her neck, shoulder, and elbow, critically aggravating a pre-existing left shoulder injury. The Insurer, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, subsequently conceded that the Claimant’s injuries were non-threshold injuries under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, and admitted liability for the accident. Following a revised settlement offer after a preliminary conference, the matter was brought before the Member for approval of the proposed damages.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central legal focus of the dispute was the approval of the proposed settlement amount for damages. This involved a careful assessment of the impact of the accident on the Claimant’s pre-existing left shoulder injury, the appropriate quantification of past and future economic loss, and the determination of whether the Claimant was entitled to non-economic loss compensation given the nature of her injuries. The Claimant sought approval of the settlement amount which included components for past and future economic loss. The Insurer sought approval of the settlement with a deduction for payments already made to the Claimant.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between the Claimant and the Insurer commenced following a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30 October 2022. The Claimant was driving her vehicle when it was struck from behind by an insured vehicle while she was attempting to turn into her driveway. This sudden impact initiated a series of events that led to the current litigation.

Following the collision, police and ambulance services attended the scene, and the Claimant was transported to Milton Hospital. Her initial assessment focused on injuries to her neck, shoulder, and elbow. Of particular concern was the immediate aggravation of a pre-existing left shoulder injury, which had previously involved a supraspinatus tear diagnosed in 2015, for which surgical repair had not been undertaken at that time. This pre-existing vulnerability became a decisive factor in the progression of her symptoms post-accident.

The Claimant subsequently lodged an Application for Personal Injury Benefits, to which the Insurer conceded that her injuries were non-threshold injuries, thereby acknowledging her entitlement to compensation for economic loss beyond the initial statutory period. A Common Law claim was formally made on 11 December 2023, and liability for the accident was wholly admitted by the Insurer on 9 February 2024. This admission set the stage for a damages assessment focused primarily on the quantification of loss, rather than a dispute over fault. The parties engaged in discussions, including a preliminary conference on 17 April 2025, which ultimately led to a revised settlement figure for which judicial approval was sought. The deterioration of the Claimant’s physical condition, particularly the persistent issues with her left shoulder, formed the bedrock of her claim for ongoing damages.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Claimant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Claimant’s case was primarily supported by her own sworn testimony regarding the accident’s impact on her life and medical evidence.
* Medical Correspondence from Dr. Jarman: Initial correspondence dated 13 December 2022 confirmed the Claimant’s primary issue was pain, despite her keenness to continue working. Subsequent correspondence dated 10 May 2023 noted some progress with physiotherapy but confirmed her rotator cuff was unsuitable for surgical repair.
* Ultrasound Scan: An ultrasound of her left shoulder indicated a supraspinatus tear, providing objective evidence of a specific injury aggravated by the accident.
* Claimant’s Testimony: Her statements detailed the rear-end collision, immediate pain, hospitalisation, ongoing problems with her left shoulder, reduced work hours post-accident, and intermittent discomfort despite a good recovery in other areas. She highlighted the ongoing impact of the left shoulder injury on her daily and working life.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Insurer’s position was informed by medical expert opinion and a comprehensive review of the Claimant’s entitlements.
* Medical Report from Dr. A Keller: In a report dated 24 September 2024, Dr. Keller acknowledged that the Claimant’s pre-existing left shoulder rotator cuff symptoms and restrictions predisposed her to pain following the accident. Crucially, he opined that she had no restriction in earning capacity to date and could continue working in her role until normal retirement age, albeit with some restrictions on tasks involving heavy pushing/pulling over 20 kg or repetitive work above chest height.
* Admission of Liability: The Insurer wholly admitted liability on 9 February 2024, shifting the focus entirely to damages.
* Weekly Wage Loss Payments: The Insurer had paid the Claimant a total of $29,319.62 for past wage loss, reflecting her reduced hours post-accident. This amount was a key factor in the calculation of the final settlement figure and subsequent deduction.

Core Dispute Points:

The core dispute points revolved around the quantification of damages, particularly:
* Causation and Extent of Aggravation: While liability was admitted, the precise extent to which the accident aggravated the pre-existing left shoulder injury and its impact on the Claimant’s capacity remained central. Dr. Keller’s report suggested predisposition rather than a new severe injury.
* Past Economic Loss Calculation: The parties needed to agree on an appropriate figure for past economic loss, taking into account the Claimant’s reduced work hours and the weekly payments already made by the Insurer. The initial settlement offer was revised to reflect the totality of payments.
* Future Economic Loss Calculation: Despite Dr. Keller’s opinion of no restriction on earning capacity to date, the ongoing intermittent symptoms and physical restrictions (heavy lifting, overhead work) suggested a potential impact on future work, warranting an allowance.
* Non-Economic Loss Threshold: The medical evidence did not support a finding that the Claimant’s whole person impairment exceeded the statutory threshold (e.g., 10%) required for compensation for non-economic loss under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Both parties utilized affidavits to present a structured narrative of facts and evidence pertinent to their claims and defences. The Claimant’s affidavits would have provided a detailed account of the accident, her immediate pain, subsequent medical consultations, treatments received, and the ongoing impact of her injuries, especially her left shoulder, on her daily activities and employment. This would include specific dates of reduced work hours, the nature of tasks she found difficult, and her subjective experience of pain and discomfort. The Claimant would have meticulously detailed her pre-existing shoulder condition, acknowledging its history while emphasizing the exacerbation directly attributable to the motor vehicle accident. The strategic intent here would be to establish a clear causal link between the accident and the aggravation of her pre-existing injury, and to demonstrate the tangible economic and personal losses suffered.

Conversely, the Insurer’s affidavits would primarily focus on presenting the medical opinions obtained, particularly that of Dr. Keller, who assessed the Claimant’s pre-existing condition and future work capacity. These affidavits would present a quantified analysis of the Claimant’s past wage loss payments, meticulously detailing the amounts and periods covered to justify the deduction sought from any approved settlement. The strategic intent for the Insurer would be to rely on expert medical opinion that limited the scope of future economic loss and explicitly excluded entitlement to non-economic loss, thereby narrowing the parameters of the damages claim.

The Member’s procedural directions regarding these affidavits would involve ensuring that all relevant facts and supporting documents were fully disclosed, allowing for a comprehensive comparison of each party’s factual assertions and evidentiary bases. Any inconsistencies between the Claimant’s subjective reports and objective medical findings, or between medical opinions, would be carefully examined to discern the most credible and reliable account, thereby revealing the subtle yet critical boundary between perceived injury and medically substantiated fact.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

In this matter, the procedural arrangements leading up to the settlement approval were concise. Following the filing of the Common Law claim and the Insurer’s admission of liability, the parties attended a preliminary conference on 17 April 2025.

At this conference, the Member directed the parties to further consider the calculations for economic loss. This direction led to a revised settlement offer, meticulously reviewed by the Insurer, which accounted for the entirety of weekly benefit payments already made to the Claimant. The revised offer reflected an adjusted allowance for past economic loss and a proposed figure for future economic loss, alongside an understanding that no claim for non-economic loss would proceed.

The most critical procedural order was for the matter to be listed for settlement approval, requiring the Member’s independent assessment of whether the agreed figure appropriately resolved the claim in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. These directions facilitated a focused discussion on damages, streamlining the path towards a resolution.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing for settlement approval unfolded with a precise focus on the agreed-upon figures for damages, particularly concerning the contentious aspects of economic loss arising from the Claimant’s pre-existing injury. The Member meticulously scrutinised the submissions, particularly the revised calculations and the medical evidence presented by both parties.

The Claimant, Maria Wakeling, maintained her position regarding ongoing discomfort and the impact of her left shoulder injury on her work, despite having returned to her pre-accident employment. Her personal account of intermittent symptoms and restrictions on specific tasks, such as heavy pushing and pulling, was a crucial component. This personal testimony provided the human dimension to the medical reports, illustrating the practical implications of her injury.

The Insurer, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, presented their revised settlement offer, which reflected a deduction for weekly payments already made for past wage loss. Their arguments hinged upon the medical opinion of Dr. A Keller, who had assessed no current restriction on the Claimant’s earning capacity and the ability to work to normal retirement age, subject to certain physical limitations. This evidence served as a pivotal counterpoint to any claim for extensive future economic loss or for non-economic loss.

The core of the confrontation lay in reconciling the subjective experience of the Claimant with the objective medical assessments and the statutory framework of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The Member, Hugh Macken, engaged directly with the specifics of the economic loss calculations.

The Member systematically analysed the proposed figures for past and future economic loss. It was determined that the original figure for past economic loss, despite the payments made, required a specific adjustment to reflect the totality of the circumstances.

His Honour adopted the “composite picture” principle, which requires the Court to examine the totality of the evidence.

“In my view the proposed figure is an appropriate figure for to resolve this matter. Noting the payments made by the insurer it follows I agree that past economic loss, for which an allowance of $25,000 has now been made, adequately covers the claimant for all times she has lost off work.”

This statement was determinative in validating the revised figure for past economic loss. The Member acknowledged the imprecision inherent in assessing future contingencies but found the allowance reasonable given the Claimant’s demonstrated capacity to work. The absence of a claim for non-economic loss was also confirmed, as the medical evidence clearly indicated that the Claimant’s whole person impairment did not meet the statutory threshold.

The overall process underscored how the objective chain of medical evidence, combined with the Claimant’s credible account of her residual limitations and her stoic approach to work, led the Member to conclude that the revised settlement, while adjusted, represented a just and equitable resolution within the confines of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Member, Hugh Macken, delivered the final judgment on 30 April 2025. The Court ordered the approval of the claim for damages in the total amount of AUD $37,000. It was further determined that the Insurer is entitled to a deduction of AUD $21,319.62 for payments already made on the Claimant’s behalf for past wage loss.

The settlement was approved under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, confirming that the allowances for past economic loss (AUD $25,000) and future economic loss (AUD $12,000) were appropriate and adequately addressed the Claimant’s entitlements stemming from the motor vehicle accident. No entitlement for non-economic loss was established, as the Claimant’s whole person impairment did not exceed the statutory threshold.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case highlights the careful balancing act required under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 when dealing with settlement approvals, particularly where a pre-existing injury is aggravated. The decision underscores the Commission’s role in scrutinising agreed settlements to ensure they are just and reasonable, even when liability is fully admitted. The prompt and compassionate response of the insurer in revising its offer based on concerns raised demonstrates a best practice approach that can mitigate further litigation.

Judgment Points:

The Member’s ruling is notable for several precise points:
* Revision of Past Economic Loss: The Member explicitly noted the insurer’s review and revision of the settlement offer to account for the totality of payments made, ensuring an appropriate deduction from the final figure for past economic loss.
* Future Economic Loss with Restrictions: An allowance of AUD $12,000 for future economic loss was approved, acknowledging the Claimant’s physical restrictions (heavy pushing/pulling over 20 kg, repetitive overhead work) despite expert opinion suggesting no current earning capacity restriction. This indicates a buffer for potential future impact or flare-ups.
* Non-Economic Loss Threshold: The judgment firmly established that no entitlement for non-economic loss existed, based on medical evidence confirming the whole person impairment did not exceed 10%. This reinforces the strict application of statutory thresholds.

Legal Basis:

The Member’s determinations were made pursuant to:
* Section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), which governs the approval of claims for damages.
* The principles of negligence and damages as modified and limited by the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, particularly regarding economic loss and the threshold for non-economic loss.

Evidence Chain:

The conclusion was founded upon a clear chain of evidence:
* The Claimant’s consistent account of the rear-end collision and subsequent pain.
* Medical reports, particularly from Dr. P Jarman, detailing ongoing pain and unsuitability of the shoulder for surgical repair.
* Ultrasound results confirming a supraspinatus tear.
* Dr. A Keller’s independent medical examination report, confirming aggravation of a pre-existing condition but no current earning capacity restriction, while noting physical limitations.
* Documented records of the Claimant’s reduced work hours and weekly wage loss payments totalling AUD $29,319.62 by the Insurer.

Judicial Original Quotation:

The Member, Hugh Macken, provided clear reasoning for his approval:

“In my view the proposed figure is an appropriate figure for to resolve this matter. Noting the payments made by the insurer it follows I agree that past economic loss, for which an allowance of $25,000 has now been made, adequately covers the claimant for all times she has lost off work.”

This statement was determinative in approving the adequacy of the revised past economic loss calculation, ensuring that the Claimant was fully compensated for her past wage loss.

“The amount of $12,000 for future economic loss is an appropriate allowance noting that the claimant has returned to employment, has confirmed that she continues to work in her pre-accident employment and expressed confidence at the settlement conference that she would be able to continue her work not withstanding intermittent discomfort.”

This quote highlights the Member’s consideration of the Claimant’s resilience and ongoing work capacity, while still making a reasonable provision for potential future impact.

“Further the medical material, particularly the report of Dr Keller dated 24 September 2024, does not provide any basis upon which the claim would be entitled to compensation for non-economic loss. The only ongoing disability she appears to have is that to her left shoulder. Both the claimant and the material confirmed this. She had a pre-existing condition to her left shoulder. She had previously undergone a rotator cuff repair to her right shoulder. In 2015, a tear in the supraspinatus of her left shoulder was diagnosed although a surgical repair was not undertaken at that time. In my view there is no possible entitlement for an assessment of whole person impairment in excess of 10% to be made as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. It follows the claim is limited to compensation for past and future economic loss.”

This comprehensive reasoning directly addressed the non-economic loss component, decisively concluding that the medical evidence did not support exceeding the 10% WPI threshold, thereby limiting the claim to economic losses.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

In this case, neither party was a complete “losing party” in the traditional sense, as the matter was resolved by an agreed settlement. However, the Claimant effectively “lost” on the non-economic loss component because her whole person impairment did not reach the statutory threshold of 10%. This was not due to a failure in argumentation but rather the objective medical evidence. For economic loss, the initial calculations and payments made by the Insurer required revision, which, once appropriately adjusted, adequately compensated the Claimant. The Insurer’s willingness to review and revise its position demonstrates proactive litigation management and likely averted a prolonged dispute over the precise quantification of economic loss.

Implications

1. Prioritise Prompt Medical Attention: Always seek immediate medical assessment and follow all prescribed treatments after an accident, as clear documentation forms the cornerstone of any future claim.
2. Understand Pre-Existing Conditions: If you have a pre-existing injury, accurately disclose its history to your legal and medical teams. An accident aggravating such a condition can still result in compensation, but precise medical evidence is vital.
3. Document All Losses: Keep meticulous records of any lost wages, medical expenses, and other financial impacts. These records are crucial for substantiating claims for economic loss.
4. Thresholds Matter: Be aware that personal injury claims often have “thresholds” for certain types of compensation, like non-economic loss. Medical evidence must objectively demonstrate impairment beyond these thresholds to qualify.
5. Engage in Good Faith Negotiations: The willingness of both parties to discuss and revise settlement figures in good faith can lead to more efficient and equitable resolutions, potentially avoiding the stress and costs of a full hearing.

Q&A Session

Q1: How does a pre-existing injury affect a personal injury claim?
A1: A pre-existing injury does not automatically invalidate a claim. If a motor vehicle accident aggravates a pre-existing condition, you can still seek compensation for the extent of that aggravation. The challenge lies in proving how much of your current symptoms are due to the new accident versus the old injury. Detailed medical evidence from before and after the accident is crucial to establish this link.

Q2: What is the significance of “economic loss” in a personal injury settlement?
A2: Economic loss refers to the financial impact of your injuries. This includes past lost wages (due to inability to work or reduced hours), future lost earning capacity (if your injuries permanently affect your ability to work or earn as much), and medical/rehabilitation expenses. Quantifying these losses accurately with evidence like payslips, tax returns, and medical prognoses is a key part of any settlement.

Q3: Why was the settlement in this case subject to a “deduction”?
A3: The deduction reflects payments already made by the Insurer to the Claimant, such as weekly benefits for past wage loss. It ensures that the Claimant is not overcompensated. When a final settlement sum is agreed upon, any previous payments made by the Insurer for the same heads of damage are typically deducted from the total amount.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
   • Case Subtype: Personal Injury – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 Settlement Approval for Aggravation of Pre-existing Injury.
   • Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment.
2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
   This case falls under ⑦ Personal Injury and Compensation in New South Wales. The core statutory framework is the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA) and principles of negligence under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA), as modified by the MAIA.

   Core Test (Negligence under the Civil Liability Act):

   • Was there a Duty of Care owed?
     • In New South Wales, drivers owe a duty of care to other road users to operate their vehicles safely and avoid causing foreseeable harm. This is a well-established duty.
   • Was there a Breach of Duty (was the risk foreseeable and not insignificant)?
     • The Insurer in this case wholly admitted liability, meaning it conceded that the insured driver breached their duty of care by causing the rear-end collision, and this breach was both foreseeable and not insignificant.
   • Did the breach cause the injury (Causation)?
     • The evidence established that the rear-end collision directly caused the Claimant’s injuries and, critically, aggravated her pre-existing left shoulder condition. Causation must be established on the balance of probabilities.
   • Core Test (Damages under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and Civil Liability Act 2002):
     • Whole Person Impairment (WPI) Threshold for Non-Economic Loss (MAIA, s 4.3 and CLA, s 16): For non-economic loss (e.g., pain and suffering), the Claimant’s WPI must exceed the statutory threshold, which is typically 10% under the MAIA (s 4.3). In this case, it was explicitly determined that the medical evidence did not support a WPI in excess of 10%, thus precluding an award for non-economic loss.
     • Economic Loss (MAIA, Part 3, Division 3):
       • Past Economic Loss (Loss of Earning Capacity – MAIA, s 3.4): Compensation for actual past wage loss due to injury. This is calculated based on documented loss of income and adjusted for statutory caps and any payments already received. Here, an allowance of AUD $25,000 was approved, with a deduction of AUD $21,319.62 for weekly payments already made.
       • Future Economic Loss (Loss of Earning Capacity – MAIA, s 3.4): Compensation for projected future loss of earning capacity. This considers ongoing medical restrictions, the likelihood of remaining in current employment, and potential impacts on future career progression. While Dr. Keller indicated no current restriction in earning capacity to normal retirement age, the allowance of AUD $12,000 indicated a recognition of intermittent symptoms and specific task restrictions.
       • Contributory Negligence (CLA, Part 4): If the Claimant contributed to their own harm, damages can be reduced. This was not a factor in this case as liability was wholly admitted.
3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

   In personal injury matters governed by the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, the primary avenue for relief is through the statutory scheme. Equitable remedies, such as Promissory Estoppel or Constructive Trusts, are rarely applicable in the context of pure personal injury claims seeking compensation for damages arising from negligence, as these are typically concerned with contractual promises or property interests.

   In this case, the claim was straightforward: compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The determination that the Claimant did not meet the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) threshold for non-economic loss is a statutory “hard threshold” under the MAIA. There are generally no equitable or common law doctrines that can be invoked to bypass such explicit statutory thresholds for damages. The focus remains on demonstrating entitlement under the specific legislative criteria. Therefore, the scope for alternative claims outside the statutory framework for personal injury damages was highly limited or non-existent.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

   Regular Thresholds:

   • Whole Person Impairment (WPI) for Non-Economic Loss (MAIA, s 4.3): The Claimant’s WPI must exceed 10% to be eligible for non-economic loss. This is a critical statutory threshold.
   • Limitation Period for Damages Claims (MAIA, s 6.13): A claim for damages must generally be made within 3 years after the date of the motor accident. Extensions can be applied for in specific circumstances.

   Exceptional Channels (Crucial):

   • Exemption from WPI Threshold (MAIA, s 4.3): While not applicable in this case, the WPI threshold for non-economic loss can be avoided if the injury is deemed a “minor injury” under the Act. However, the Claimant’s injuries were determined to be “non-minor” (non-threshold) which means she was eligible for weekly payments beyond 26 weeks and eligible to claim for economic loss, but still subject to the WPI threshold for non-economic loss.
   • Limitation Period Extensions (MAIA, s 6.14): If the 3-year limitation period has expired, a court may grant leave to commence proceedings if it is satisfied that the delay was caused by certain specified factors, such as the material facts relating to the cause of action not being ascertained within that period, or if the delay was due to the claimant’s legal incapacity. This ensures that deserving claimants are not unfairly barred due to unavoidable delays.
   • Aggravation of Pre-existing Injury: As demonstrated in this case, even if an injury pre-exists, the accident can still be found to have aggravated it, leading to a compensable claim. The key is to prove the extent of the aggravation caused by the accident.

   Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

   Citation Angle:

   It is recommended to cite Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Wakeling [2025] NSWPIC 179 in legal submissions or debates involving:

   • Settlement approval processes under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
   • The assessment and quantification of economic loss (past and future) in motor accident claims.
   • Cases involving the aggravation of pre-existing injuries and their impact on damages.
   • The application of the Whole Person Impairment threshold for non-economic loss under the MAIA.

   Citation Method:

   • As Positive Support: When your matter involves an assessment of economic loss, especially where there’s an aggravation of a pre-existing injury, citing this authority can strengthen your argument regarding the reasonableness of a proposed settlement that factors in such complexities and judiciously applies statutory thresholds.
   • As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasise any uniqueness of the current matter, such as a higher WPI, more severe future restrictions, or clearer causation for non-economic loss, to argue that this precedent’s conclusion on certain heads of damage is not applicable.

   Anonymisation Rule: When citing in practice, always use the full case name and citation as given in the judgment. When discussing parties, strictly use procedural titles such as Claimant / Insurer or Applicant / Respondent.

Conclusion

The case of Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Wakeling [2025] NSWPIC 179 stands as a clear example of the judicious application of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 to achieve an equitable resolution in a personal injury claim involving a pre-existing condition. It underscores the critical importance of robust medical evidence in quantifying damages and navigating statutory thresholds, particularly for economic and non-economic loss. The prompt and compassionate approach of the insurer in revising its settlement offer further highlights the value of good faith in dispute resolution. True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Wakeling [2025] NSWPIC 179), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.