Publications

Case summary: Saedi v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 71 – a claimant perspective on childcare services and statutory benefits

Published on May 5, 2025 by Matthew Forshaw

The recent decision in Saedi v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 71, (Saedi) handed down on 21 March 2025, raises important considerations for claimants seeking reimbursement for childcare services under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA). The case illustrates the difficulties injured claimants encounter when attempting to classify childcare services as “treatment and care” or “domestic services” under the Act.

Background

The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 2 June 2023.

The claimant required ongoing medical treatment and to facilitate her attendance her medical appointments, she sought approval from the insurer, Allianz, for childcare services.

She contended that childcare services fell within the definition of “treatment and care” under section 1.4 of the MAIA, arguing that they should be classified as “attendant care services” because they assisted with an essential everyday task, caring for her dependent child.

The insurer denied the request, maintaining that childcare services did not meet the statutory definition of “treatment and care” and were therefore not compensable. The matter was subsequently referred to the PIC for both a miscellaneous assessment and a merit review.

The legal framework

• Treatment and care under section 1.4 of the MAIA

Section 1.4 of the MAIA defines “treatment and care” as including “attendant care services,” which are described as services that assist people with everyday tasks. Examples provided in the legislation include personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance, and domestic services.

The claimant sought to argue that childcare services were akin to domestic services and, therefore, fell within this definition. The insurer, however, took a narrow interpretation, contending that childcare services did not provide direct assistance to the claimant but rather benefited the child, and thus could not be classified as “attendant care services.”

• Domestic services under section 3.26 of the MAIA

Alternatively, the claimant contended that childcare services could be classified as “domestic services” under section 3.26 of the MAIA, which allows injured persons to claim statutory benefits for reasonable expenses incurred in employing someone to provide domestic services to dependents.

For a claimant to successfully claim domestic services under section 3.26, they must satisfy all four criteria:

1. The claimant must have provided the domestic services to their dependents before the accident.
2. The dependents must be unable to perform the services themselves due to age or incapacity.
3. The claimant must have been reasonably expected to provide the services for at least six hours per week for six consecutive months.
4. There must be a continuing need for the services, and the request must be reasonable under the circumstances.

The decision of the Personal Injury Commission (PIC)

The PIC ultimately found in favour of the insurer, determining that the childcare services sought by the claimant did not meet the definition of “attendant care services” under section 1.4 or “domestic services” under section 3.26.

Attendant care services

The PIC found that childcare services do not fall within the statutory definition of “attendant care services” because they do not directly assist the claimant with everyday tasks. Instead, they provide assistance to the child, and therefore, the need for childcare does not arise from the claimant’s personal need for care but rather from the logistical challenges posed by her medical treatment schedule.

The PIC also highlighted that childcare services intended to prepare a child for school, such as literacy and numeracy programs, are considered educational services rather than “attendant care services.” Since the claimant sought structured childcare services aligned with the school term, the request did not fall within the ambit of the MAIA.

Domestic services

The PIC acknowledged that certain forms of childcare might qualify as “domestic services” under section 3.26. For example, short-term babysitting in an informal setting—such as a relative or nanny providing care while a parent recovers from an injury—could arguably be classified as domestic services.

However, the claimant’s request did not satisfy all four criteria required under section 3.26(1). The PIC noted that the claimant did not provide the requested childcare services to the dependent before the accident, failing the first criterion.

The claimant could also not establish that the childcare services were required for at least six hours per week for six consecutive months. The requested services were furthermore structured around school readiness, which placed them outside the category of household or domestic services.

Because the claimant could not meet the legislative requirements, her claim for childcare services was denied.

Implications for claimants

The decision underscores the importance of understanding the MAIA’s strict definitions when seeking statutory benefits for childcare services. Claimants who require childcare assistance due to an accident must be aware that:

• Childcare services are unlikely to qualify as “treatment and care” unless they directly assist the injured claimant with their personal needs rather than benefiting a dependent.
• Some forms of childcare may qualify as “domestic services” under section 3.26, but only if the claimant provided those services before the accident and meets the other strict statutory requirements.
• Educational or structured childcare programs are not compensable under either provision of the MAIA, as they are classified as educational services rather than essential domestic support.

Potential avenues for future claimants

While the decision limits the ability of claimants to recover childcare expenses, it does leave open the possibility that informal or in-home babysitting arrangements could be considered “domestic services” in certain circumstances. Future claimants seeking compensation for childcare services should:

• Demonstrate that they provided the same childcare services before the accident to meet the first requirement of section 3.26.
• Ensure that their childcare needs meet the six-hour-per-week, six-month requirement outlined in section 3.26.
• Consider framing the request around short-term, in-home assistance rather than structured educational programs to improve the likelihood of meeting the statutory definition of “domestic services.”

The Saedi decision highlights the challenges claimants face when seeking statutory benefits for childcare services following a motor accident. While the case confirms that some forms of childcare might qualify as “domestic services,” it reinforces the strict criteria that must be met for such claims to succeed. Claimants must carefully structure their claims to align with the MAIA’s definitions and evidentiary requirements.

Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking professional advice on any legal matters, you can contact Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers on 1800 059 278 or via our Contact Page and one of our lawyers will be able to assist you. If you or a loved one have been injured, use our Personal injury Claim Check now.

Disclosure and important note: This article is based on our own legal research and thinking. Some of its content has been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The authors have checked and approved this article, including the AI generated content, for publication.