Publications

The New South Wales Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Bell [2025] NSWCA 187 is important for claimant lawyers who regularly act in disputes under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA). The judgment clarifies the scope of the Medical Review Panel’s role in assessing causation and whole person impairment, particularly where psychological injuries arise from a series of connected events. The Court made clear that the Panel is not a court or tribunal, and it is not required to decide legal questions about what falls within the definition of a “motor accident”. Instead, its role is to undertake a factual inquiry into whether a claimant’s injuries, both physical and psychological, were caused by the incident and to determine the extent of permanent impairment.

For claimants, this case is significant because it prevents insurers from attempting to divide a traumatic event into separate parts to deny liability for psychological injury. The decision also confirms that Review Panels are entitled to treat a chain of events as a single causative incident, so long as the motor accident is a contributing cause that is more than negligible.

Background

The claimant was injured when he attempted to prevent an offender from unlawfully taking his Harley-Davidson motorcycle. The individual, unable to start the bike, attempted to wheel it away. In the process, the motorcycle was pushed into the claimant, causing a leg injury. At the same time, another rider picked up the offender on his motorcycle and turned his motorcycle towards the claimant in a threatening manner, as though intending to drive into him.

As a result of the incident, the claimant suffered both a physical leg injury and psychological injuries. He made a claim for personal injury benefits under the MAIA. The CTP insurer, Allianz argued that the psychological injuries were not caused by the motor accident but instead by the attempted theft and the claimant’s fear of retribution from what he perceived to be an outlaw motorcycle gang. Allianz contended that these events were distinct from the motor accident, could be considered a novus actus interveniens to break the chain of causation and therefore not compensable under the statutory scheme.

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) originally referred the dispute to a medical assessor, who determined that the claimant’s psychological injuries were not related to the motor accident. On review, however, the decision was set aside and remitted. The Review Panel then concluded that the psychological injuries were in fact caused by the motor accident. This entitled the claimant to statutory benefits and to pursue damages for non-economic loss. Allianz sought judicial review of that outcome. This challenge was dismissed by Lonergan J. Allianz then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues on Appeal

On appeal, Allianz repeated its argument that the Review Panel had improperly “bundled” distinct events into the description of the motor accident. Allianz maintained that stealing the motorcycle and the claimant’s subsequent fear of bikie gang retribution could not be treated as part of the motor accident. It argued that the Review Panel had failed to identify the specific event or events that caused the claimant’s psychological injury and that it had erred in not determining whether those events occurred before or after the motor accident. Allianz submitted that any later events could amount to a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation.

The claimant submitted that the Review Panel had properly assessed causation by reference to the physical events, that it was not the Panel’s role to determine what legally constituted a motor accident, and that the Panel was entitled to view the incident as a single causative event.

The Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeal rejected Allianz’s arguments and dismissed the appeal. The Court observed that there will be many cases where it is not possible for a Review Panel to isolate a single physical act as the cause of a psychological injury.

Where a series of events unfolds rapidly and results in trauma, the Review Panel is entitled to consider those events in combination. In this case, the CCTV footage showed that the events occurred in quick succession. The Court considered it unsurprising that the Review Panel did not attempt to separate the act of the motorcycle being pushed into the claimant’s leg from the subsequent threatening actions of the second rider.

The Court accepted that the collision did not have to be the sole cause of the claimant’s psychological injury. It was sufficient that the motor accident was a contributing cause that was more than negligible, consistent with clause 6.7 of the Motor Accident Guidelines. The Court also dismissed Allianz’s novus actus argument, holding that the insurer’s submission was based on the incorrect premise that the Review Panel was required to determine what legally constituted a motor accident. The Court emphasised that such a question was outside the Panel’s remit. The Court confirmed that it remains the ultimate finder of fact, responsible for the legal characterisation of events and the application of defences such as novus actus interveniens. The Panel’s function was confined to making factual determinations about causation and the extent of permanent impairment.

Why this case is important for claimants

From the perspective of claimant lawyers, this decision is an important reinforcement of several principles that protect injured people in complex factual scenarios.

The decision confirms that psychological injuries need not be tied exclusively to a single physical impact. Many accidents involve multiple elements, including threats, fear, or rapidly unfolding events that create a traumatic environment. By recognising that these elements can be considered as part of a single causative incident, the Court has ensured that claimants are not unfairly disadvantaged simply because their psychological injuries cannot be neatly attributed to one split-second event.

The case limits the ability of insurers to fragment incidents to deny compensation. Allianz attempted to draw a distinction between the theft of the motorcycle, the physical collision, and the claimant’s fear of gang retribution. The Court’s rejection of this argument affirms that causation in personal injury claims must be approached in a practical and realistic way.

The decision also provides clarity on the novus actus interveniens defence. The Court confirmed that this is a legal issue, not a medical one, and that Review Panels are not permitted to decide it. For claimants, this means that medical assessors and Review Panels must focus squarely on whether the injuries were caused by the incident, rather than engaging in legal analysis that could narrow the scope of compensable injuries.

The case reinforces the principle that psychological injuries arising out of motor accidents should be assessed in context and that claimants should not be denied compensation because their trauma resulted from a sequence of related events rather than a single moment. For claimant lawyers, the decision provides a strong basis to argue for holistic recognition of injuries under the MAIA and to counter insurer attempts to reduce liability by restricting the scope of what is considered a motor accident.

This article was published on 20 October by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website. If you or a loved one has been injured, use our Personal Injury Claim Check now.