Australian Public Transport Accident Compensation: Determining Liability and Assessing Damages for Pre-Existing Conditions

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case BRY v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 231, 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 of New South Wales
Presiding Member: Anthony Scarcella
Cause of Action: Application for an assessment of a claim for damages for a motor accident
Judgment Date: 28 May 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Public Transport No-Fault Accident
Keyword 3: Contributory Negligence
Keyword 4: Aggravation of Pre-existing Injuries
Keyword 5: Economic Loss Assessment (MAC Act)
Keyword 6: Spinal Cord Stimulator

Background:

This matter concerned a claim for damages arising from a motor accident that occurred on 2 July 2019, when the Claimant, BRY, was a passenger on a New South Wales government bus. The Claimant alleged to have suffered physical and psychological injuries as a result of the incident. The Insurer, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, partially admitted liability on the basis that it was a “no fault accident” within the meaning of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act). The Insurer, however, alleged contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant and disputed the extent of economic loss claimed. The assessment of damages was to be conducted under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MAC Act) due to the nature of the public transport accident.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The core disputes between the parties revolved around several key issues. The Insurer contended that the Claimant was contributorily negligent, proposing a 25% reduction in damages. This required the Commission to determine whether the Claimant had departed from the standard of care required for her own safety in a no-fault accident scenario. Furthermore, there was a significant dispute regarding the nature and extent of the Claimant’s injuries and resulting incapacity, particularly given her extensive pre-existing physical and psychological conditions. Finally, the parties contested the Claimant’s entitlement to damages for past and future economic loss, including superannuation, and the appropriate methodology for such assessment under the MAC Act, specifically considering section 126 of that Act. The Claimant sought full compensation for her economic losses, asserting a complete loss of earning capacity due to the accident.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The events leading to this litigation began on the evening of 2 July 2019, when the Claimant, then 51 years old, boarded an M30 government bus to travel home from work in Sydney. Having just commenced a new role as head of commercial law with Bell Partners the day prior, the Claimant was standing at the very rear of the articulated bus, holding onto a strap that hung from a metal bar near the ceiling.

The Claimant described the bus as accelerating rapidly as it exited the Warringah Freeway and turned right into Falcon Street, a common manoeuvre, she noted, for buses attempting to “beat the lights” at that corner. This unexpected acceleration and sharp turn caused the back of the bus to “swing wildly,” leading her to lose her footing. Unable to release her left hand from the strap, she was thrown violently, twisting her lower back and ending up “dangling” from the strap. The immediate pain in her lower back and right leg was excruciating, rated as 10/10.

The profound and unexpected nature of this incident marked a decisive moment in the Claimant’s life. Despite her history of previous back injuries and psychological conditions, which she maintained were well-managed before this event, the severity of this incident triggered a cascade of medical complications and a significant deterioration in her physical and mental health, fundamentally altering her capacity to work and live independently. This singular event laid the foundation for the subsequent legal proceedings to seek compensation for the dramatic shift in her life circumstances.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Claimant’s case was primarily supported by her own sworn statements and oral testimony, detailing the mechanism of injury, the immediate and ongoing pain, and the subsequent medical interventions. She presented extensive medical records from numerous treating doctors and specialists, including neurosurgeons, neurologists, pain specialists, and psychiatrists, detailing her pre-existing conditions and the significant post-accident treatment. These records documented a severe aggravation of her pre-existing lumbosacral spine condition with referred pain into both lower limbs, as well as an aggravation of her pre-existing psychological/psychiatric condition.

Crucially, the Claimant relied on medico-legal reports from Dr Timothy Siu (neurosurgeon), Associate Professor David Champion (pain specialist), and Professor Bruce Brew (neurologist), whose opinions supported that the motor accident caused a severe and ongoing aggravation of her physical and psychological conditions, leading to a permanent loss of earning capacity. A forensic accounting report from Furzer Crestani Forensic Chartered Accountants was tendered to quantify her past and future economic losses based on her pre-accident earning capacity.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Insurer relied on the Claimant’s own statements (particularly an early statement to an investigator) and oral evidence to argue contributory negligence, suggesting she failed to maintain a proper hold and monitor the bus’s movements. They presented evidence from Mr Markos Tilaye, the bus driver, who denied recalling any incident and stated the bus’s speed limiter would prevent speeds alleged by the Claimant.

The Insurer also presented medico-legal reports from Dr Greggory Burrow (orthopaedic surgeon) and Dr John O’Neill (neurologist), who generally agreed that the accident caused an aggravation of pre-existing conditions but attributed a larger proportion of her current disability to the natural progression of her pre-existing conditions rather than the accident itself. Dr Burrow initially apportioned one-quarter, then revised to one-third, of the Claimant’s current symptoms to the accident. Dr O’Neill considered the aggravation to play only a “minor role” in her ongoing incapacity. Dr Thomas Newlyn (psychiatrist) opined that the Claimant’s psychiatric condition, while exacerbated, did not impair her ability to work from a mental health perspective. A report from Ms Belinda Fisher, a legal recruiter, challenged the Claimant’s career progression assumptions for economic loss calculations.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Contributory Negligence: Whether the Claimant failed to take reasonable care for her own safety on the bus, and if so, the extent of her departure from that standard, noting the specific legal test for no-fault accidents (Axiak v Ingram).
2. Causation and Aggravation of Injuries: The extent to which the motor accident caused or materially contributed to the Claimant’s current severe and ongoing lumbosacral spine and psychological/psychiatric conditions, distinguishing between new injury, aggravation, and the natural progression of pre-existing conditions.
3. Loss of Earning Capacity: Whether the Claimant has suffered a total or partial loss of earning capacity as a result of the accident, and the extent of that loss, considering her pre-accident work history and her capacity post-accident.
4. Quantum of Economic Loss: The appropriate calculation of past and future economic loss, including superannuation, given conflicting expert opinions on pre-accident earning trajectory and post-accident residual capacity.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In this matter, the primary factual narratives were presented through the Claimant’s application form for personal injury benefits, a statement to the Insurer’s investigator dated 23 February 2020, and an evidentiary statement to her own lawyers dated 11 November 2024. Oral evidence from the Claimant and the bus driver, Mr Markos Tilaye, also served to clarify or, at times, contradict these written accounts.

The application form and early statements provided a consistent description of the accident’s immediate aftermath: acute lower back pain, inability to walk, and immediate presentation to Royal North Shore Hospital by her partner, necessitating a wheelchair. These documents established the foundational facts of the injury event and initial severity.

A notable point of comparison arose regarding the Claimant’s recollection of her pre-accident medical history, particularly concerning the severity and frequency of her back pain. In her evidentiary statement, the Claimant asserted a largely settled back condition in the years leading up to the accident, with only “intermittent minor aches during thunderstorms.” However, during cross-examination, when confronted with contemporaneous clinical records from various medical practices, she conceded a more active history of chronic back pain, flare-ups, and ongoing medication use. She explained these inconsistencies by citing poor memory affected by medication and a lack of access to her detailed medical records when providing her earlier statements.

The Judge’s procedural directions implicitly aimed to scrutinise these narratives. By allowing extensive cross-examination on medical records, the Court sought to establish the “true” pre-accident baseline of the Claimant’s health. The strategic intent behind this was to differentiate between the natural progression of her pre-existing conditions and the actual impact of the motor accident. The discrepancies highlighted the challenge in reconstructing a claimant’s health history when relying solely on self-reporting, especially with complex, long-standing conditions. The Court’s careful sifting of these accounts through direct questioning and reference to contemporaneous records was crucial for separating genuine recollection from potential under-reporting or memory distortion.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final assessment conference, the Commission issued several procedural directions to manage the complex nature of the dispute, particularly concerning the extensive medical evidence and the quantification of economic loss.

The matter proceeded to a preliminary conference, where it was subsequently set down for an assessment conference. During these preliminary stages, the parties were directed to exchange detailed medical reports from their respective experts, encompassing orthopaedic surgeons, neurologists, pain specialists, and psychiatrists. This ensured a comprehensive overview of both the Claimant’s pre-existing conditions and her post-accident presentation.

Further directions involved the exchange of financial records and the preparation of forensic accounting reports to quantify the Claimant’s past and future earning capacity. The parties were also directed to prepare and exchange written submissions outlining their arguments on the substantive issues of contributory negligence, causation, and quantum of damages.

The Commission facilitated several settlement negotiations, but these were confirmed by the parties to have been exhausted, necessitating a full determination by the Member. These procedural arrangements were crucial to narrow the issues in dispute and ensure that all relevant evidence and arguments were presented systematically for the final assessment.

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

The assessment conference served as the ultimate showdown, where the Claimant’s and the Insurer’s legal representatives presented their cases, supported by expert medical and forensic accounting evidence, and rigorously tested each other’s narratives. A critical aspect of the hearing involved the cross-examination of the Claimant, particularly regarding her pre-accident medical history and her work capacity.

The Claimant maintained her version of the incident, describing the bus’s unexpected and violent swinging motion, her inability to release her hand from the strap, and the immediate, excruciating pain. She consistently denied any significant pre-existing back pain that would have impacted her work or daily life. However, during cross-examination by Counsel for the Insurer, Mr Kelleher SC, significant inconsistencies between her oral testimony and her contemporaneous medical records were exposed. The Claimant conceded numerous consultations for chronic back pain, use of strong analgesics, and psychological admissions for depression and suicidal ideation in the years preceding the accident. She attributed these discrepancies to memory issues exacerbated by pain medication and a lack of access to her full medical history when making earlier statements.

The core confrontation of evidence revolved around the extent of the accident’s impact versus the natural progression of her pre-existing conditions. The Insurer’s medical experts, Dr Burrow and Dr O’Neill, heavily relied on the Claimant’s detailed pre-accident medical history to argue that her current debilitating symptoms were largely a result of the natural course of her lumbar fusion and chronic pain, with the accident playing only a minor aggravating role. Conversely, the Claimant’s experts, Dr Siu, Associate Professor Champion, and Professor Brew, despite acknowledging the pre-existing vulnerabilities, emphasised the accident as a “watershed event” that severely aggravated her conditions, leading to a permanent and total loss of earning capacity.

The judicial reasoning focused on reconciling these divergent narratives and expert opinions through the lens of objective evidence and established legal principles. The Member critically evaluated the credibility of the Claimant’s oral evidence in light of the contemporaneous medical records, noting her forthright manner despite memory challenges. The Commission then assessed the probative value of each expert report, particularly scrutinising the methodology and underlying assumptions.

The Commission’s determination regarding contributory negligence was particularly insightful. The Insurer’s initial submissions applied a conventional apportionment test, which was inappropriate for a no-fault accident. The Member reiterated the correct legal test, as established by the Court of Appeal in Axiak v Ingram, which focuses on the Claimant’s departure from the standard of care for her own safety.

The Commission observed:

“I reject the insurer’s allegation that the claimant failed to maintain a proper hold of the strap. The claimant was holding onto a strap made out of thick material that was specifically provided for standing bus passengers. She was holding onto the strap with her left hand. She was left dangling from the strap after the incident. She did not recall whether she had her mobile telephone in her right hand. There was no evidence that she did. In any event, she was holding onto the strap prior to, during and after the incident. There was no evidence to suggest that it would have made any difference to the mechanism of the incident if the claimant had had something in her right hand.”

This statement was determinative in rejecting the Insurer’s primary argument for contributory negligence, as it affirmed that the Claimant had, in fact, taken reasonable precautions by utilising the provided safety strap. The Commission then systematically dismissed each of the Insurer’s other allegations of contributory negligence, finding them unsupported by evidence or illogical given the sudden and violent nature of the bus’s movement.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Commission issued a Certificate of Determination, specifying the findings and orders made in the matter.

Determinations made:
In accordance with Division 7.6 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, the Commission’s assessment is:

1. The amount of damages for the claim is AUD $2,687,149.
2. The Insurer is to pay the Claimant’s legal costs and disbursements in accordance with Part 8 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and the Motor Accidents Injuries Regulation 2017 as agreed or assessed and as assessed in the statement of reasons in respect of the unregulated fee for the forensic accounting report of Furzer Crestani dated 3 April 2023 in the sum of AUD $8,360.
3. Given the sensitive personal information referred to in the attached statement of reasons, the decision is to be de-identified before it is published in accordance with rule 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021.

A statement setting out the Commission’s reasons for the assessment was included with the certificate.

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

Special Analysis:

This case highlights the critical importance of a nuanced approach to causation and apportionment in personal injury claims, particularly when pre-existing conditions are present. The Commission’s meticulous review of both the Claimant’s and the Insurer’s expert medical evidence, contrasting narratives against contemporaneous clinical records, was central to its findings. The case also underscores the specific legal test for contributory negligence in “no-fault” accident schemes, distinguishing it from conventional negligence claims. The determination that a public transport accident, even if occurring post-MAI Act, is assessed under the MAC Act, reaffirms the principles established in McTye v Ching Yu Chang by his Tutor Leo Alexander Birch [2025] NSWCA 3. This dual-Act application is a noteworthy jurisdictional point.

Judgment Points:

The Commission’s judgment offered several key points:
* Contributory Negligence Test: The strict application of the Axiak v Ingram [2012] NSWCA 311 test for contributory negligence in a no-fault accident, focusing on the Claimant’s departure from the standard of care for her own safety, rather than comparative culpability. This is a crucial distinction.
* Probative Value of Evidence: The Commission gave little weight to the bus driver’s evidence due to his inability to recall the incident, highlighting the preference for contemporaneous and direct evidence over reconstructed accounts.
* Weight of Expert Medical Opinion: The Commission systematically preferred the Claimant’s medical experts (Dr Siu, Associate Professor Champion, Professor Brew) over the Insurer’s (Dr Burrow, Dr O’Neill) regarding the extent of causation and resulting work incapacity. This preference was based on the more robust logical path of reasoning and clearer explanation of how the accident led to a “severe and ongoing aggravation” despite pre-existing conditions.
* Assessment of Economic Loss: The Member chose a conservative but reasonable approach to assessing the Claimant’s pre-accident earning capacity, relying on a consistent history of high earnings rather than speculative future career progression. The ultimate finding of total loss of earning capacity was significant given the Claimant’s vocational background.

Legal Basis:

The Commission explicitly referred to and applied:
* Section 121(1) of the Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW) – for the application of the MAC Act.
* Chapter 5 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – for the assessment of damages.
* Section 126 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – for assumptions about future economic loss, prospects, and adjustments.
* Section 127 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – for the prescribed discount rate of 5% for future economic loss.
* Rule 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 – for de-identification of decisions with sensitive personal information.
* Part 8 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) and the Motor Accidents Injuries Regulation 2017 – for legal costs and disbursements.

Evidence Chain:

The chain of evidence established that:
* The Claimant, despite a long history of physical and psychological conditions, was functioning well, working full-time, and had commenced a new high-paying role immediately prior to the accident.
* The bus incident involved a sudden, violent, and unexpected movement, causing the Claimant to be thrown and her back to twist.
* Immediately following the accident, the Claimant experienced acute and severe back and leg pain, leading to hospitalisation and a protracted course of extensive, invasive, and largely unsuccessful medical treatments (spinal cord stimulator, numerous injections, infusions).
* Her physical limitations (sitting, standing, walking, driving) and psychological distress (depression, anxiety, memory issues, fatigue) significantly worsened, rendering her unable to return to her pre-accident work as a solicitor or in any other capacity.
* Contemporaneous medical records confirmed the severity of post-accident symptoms and the ongoing need for complex pain management.

Judicial Original Quotation:

The Commission, in rejecting the Insurer’s argument for contributory negligence, critically examined the Claimant’s conduct during the bus incident:

“I reject the insurer’s allegation that the claimant failed to maintain a proper hold of the strap. The claimant was holding onto a strap made out of thick material that was specifically provided for standing bus passengers. She was holding onto the strap with her left hand. She was left dangling from the strap after the incident. She did not recall whether she had her mobile telephone in her right hand. There was no evidence that she did. In any event, she was holding onto the strap prior to, during and after the incident. There was no evidence to suggest that it would have made any difference to the mechanism of the incident if the claimant had had something in her right hand.”

This statement was pivotal in determining that the Claimant had indeed taken reasonable precautions for her safety by holding the provided strap. The lack of evidence demonstrating how an alternative action would have prevented the injury, coupled with the violent and unexpected nature of the bus’s movement, led the Commission to conclude that the Insurer had failed to discharge its onus of proving contributory negligence.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The Insurer’s failure stemmed from several key areas:
1. Incorrect Legal Test for Contributory Negligence: Initially applying a comparative culpability test suitable for conventional negligence, rather than the specific “departure from standard of care” test required for no-fault accidents under Axiak v Ingram.
2. Insufficient Evidence for Contributory Negligence: Failing to provide concrete evidence of how the Claimant’s actions (e.g., holding a phone) constituted a departure from a reasonable standard of care or how such a departure was causative of her injuries. The Claimant’s consistent evidence of holding onto a strap directly contradicted the Insurer’s primary allegation.
3. Underestimation of Accident’s Impact: The Insurer’s medical experts largely downplayed the accident’s role, attributing a greater proportion of the Claimant’s disability to the natural progression of pre-existing conditions. This narrative was unconvincing in light of the “watershed event” nature of the accident and the significant escalation of symptoms and interventions post-incident.
4. Speculative Economic Loss Assumptions: The Insurer’s economic loss calculations were criticised for being based on a “cherry-picked” and unrepresentative period of the Claimant’s work history, rather than her consistent long-term earning capacity.

Implications
1. Understanding “No-Fault” Rules: If you’re injured in a public transport accident, remember that “no-fault” doesn’t mean your claim is automatically straightforward. There are still complex legal tests, especially for contributory negligence.
2. The Importance of Medical History: Be transparent and thorough about your entire medical history. Judges will scrutinise contemporaneous records, and inconsistencies can undermine your credibility, even if unintended.
3. Documenting Every Step: Keep detailed records of your injuries, treatments, and their impact on your daily life and work. This continuous evidence chain is crucial for proving the severity and ongoing nature of your losses.
4. Expert Evidence is Key: In complex injury claims, strong and logically reasoned medical and financial expert reports are vital. The Court will weigh these opinions carefully, looking for clear explanations of causation and impact.
5. Don’t Give Up on Your Capacity: Even if you have pre-existing conditions, a significant accident can still be deemed the primary cause of a worsened state. The law often protects those made more vulnerable by another’s actions, and your determination to recover and return to work matters.

Q&A Session
Q1: What is a “no-fault accident” in the context of this case, and how does it differ from a standard negligence claim?
A1: In this case, a “no-fault accident” means that the injured person does not need to prove that another party was at fault (negligent) to be entitled to personal injury benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. This differs from a standard negligence claim where the claimant typically must establish that the defendant breached a duty of care, and that breach caused the injury. However, for a public transport accident, even if it’s “no-fault” under the MAI Act, the assessment of damages may still be governed by the older Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, which has different rules, including for contributory negligence.

Q2: How did the Claimant’s pre-existing medical conditions affect the assessment of her damages?
A2: The Claimant had a long history of pre-existing back injuries and psychological conditions. While the accident was deemed to have “aggravated” these conditions, the Insurer argued that the natural progression of these pre-existing issues would have led to similar disability anyway. The Court had to disentangle what part of her current suffering was due to the accident versus what would have occurred naturally. Ultimately, the Commission found that the accident caused a “severe and ongoing aggravation” despite the pre-existing conditions, highlighting that while vulnerability existed, the accident was the primary driver of her current severe state.

Q3: Why was the forensic accounting report important, and why did the Insurer challenge it?
A3: The forensic accounting report was crucial for quantifying the Claimant’s economic loss. It analysed her past earnings to establish a baseline for her earning capacity “but for” the accident. The Insurer challenged it because it believed the report’s assumptions about her future career progression (e.g., becoming an equity partner) were speculative and not supported by her inconsistent work history. The Commission, however, found the report valuable for establishing a baseline based on actual earnings, even if it adjusted the career progression aspect based on other evidence.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
   Case Subtype: Personal Injury – Public Transport Accident (No-Fault Scheme)
   Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
   Core Test (Negligence under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), where applicable to damages assessment under MAC Act):

   • Duty of Care owed? (Does the defendant owe a duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff?)
   • Breach of Duty? (Was the risk of harm foreseeable and not insignificant? Would a reasonable person in the defendant’s position have taken precautions against the risk?)
   • Causation? (Was the defendant’s breach a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm – factual causation? Is it appropriate for the scope of the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused – scope of liability?)

   Core Test (Damages under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)):

   • Whole Person Impairment (WPI): Does the Claimant’s WPI, as assessed by a Medical Assessor, meet the statutory threshold for non-economic loss (e.g., 10% or 15% depending on the specific date of injury and amendments)?
   • Contributory Negligence: In a no-fault accident, did the Claimant depart from the standard of care she was required to observe in the interests of her own safety? (Reference Axiak v Ingram [2012] NSWCA 311).
   • Assessment of Economic Loss (Section 126 MAC Act): The award of damages for future economic loss must be based on assumptions about future earning capacity or other events that accord with the Claimant’s most likely future circumstances but for the injury. The amount must be adjusted by reference to the percentage possibility that the events concerned might have occurred but for the injury.
3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
   In personal injury matters, the primary avenue for compensation is typically through statutory schemes (like the MAI Act or MAC Act) or common law negligence actions. Equitable remedies (like promissory estoppel or constructive trusts) are less commonly applied directly to quantify personal injury damages. However, common law principles of damages, particularly those dealing with pre-existing vulnerabilities or “intervening events,” are crucial when assessing economic loss within the statutory framework of the MAC Act.
   • Aggravation vs. Natural Progression (Common Law Doctrine):
     • Principle: The “eggshell skull” rule dictates that a defendant must take their victim as they find them. If an injury aggravates a pre-existing condition, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the aggravation.
     • Counter-attack Strategy: If the Insurer argues the current state is due to natural progression, the Claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident accelerated or worsened the pre-existing condition beyond its natural course.
     • Reference: Purkiss v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164.
   • Loss of Earning Capacity (Common Law Doctrine):
     • Principle: The assessment aims to compensate for the lost “earning capacity,” not just actual lost wages. This includes potential career progression.
     • Counter-attack Strategy: If statutory caps or restrictions limit direct calculation, detailed evidence of career trajectory and industry prospects can inform the court’s discretion within general damages principles.
     • Reference: Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5.
4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
   Regular Thresholds:
   • Public Transport Accident: The primary threshold is that the injury must be caused by or arise out of a public transport accident, triggering the application of the MAC Act for damages assessment (pursuant to s 121(1) Transport Administration Act 1988).
   • Non-Economic Loss: The Claimant’s Whole Person Impairment (WPI) must exceed a statutory threshold (e.g., 10% WPI as per Guidelines for claims under the MAI Act, which are often referenced even if assessing under the MAC Act). In this case, the Claimant conceded no entitlement to non-economic loss.

   Exceptional Channels (Crucial):

   • Limitation Period Expired? For personal injury claims, strict limitation periods apply (e.g., typically three years from the date of the accident or the date a cause of action is discoverable). Extensions may be available in limited circumstances, such as:
     • Latent Damage: Where the injury or its severity was not discoverable until much later.
     • Legal Incapacity: If the Claimant was a minor or lacked mental capacity.
     • Special Circumstances: The court may grant leave to commence proceedings out of time if it is “just and reasonable” to do so.

   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 this case in legal submissions or debates involving public transport accidents, the interplay between the MAI Act and MAC Act, and the assessment of contributory negligence or economic loss in cases of pre-existing conditions.
   Citation Method:

   • As Positive Support: When your matter involves an injured party on a government bus, this authority can support the argument that damages should be assessed under the MAC Act, rather than the MAI Act. It also provides a strong precedent for arguing against contributory negligence where a claimant has taken reasonable precautions in unexpected circumstances.
   • As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasise the unique factual matrix of the bus’s violent and unexpected movement or the Claimant’s specific pre-accident health status to argue that this precedent’s findings on causation or quantum are not directly applicable.
     Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Claimant / Insurer or Appellant / Respondent.

---

Conclusion
This authentic judgment underscores the profound impact a single incident can have on an individual’s life, especially when pre-existing vulnerabilities are present. The Commission’s meticulous approach to assessing complex medical histories, weighing expert opinions, and applying nuanced legal principles for contributory negligence and economic loss provides crucial insights. It demonstrates that even in “no-fault” schemes, diligent legal analysis is paramount. Every individual deserves to have their unique circumstances thoroughly evaluated, and every legal practitioner has a duty to ensure that truth, evidence, and justice prevail.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: 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 (BRY v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 231), 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.