CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER  	

Citation:	
Stevenson v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2022] NSWPIC 592	
		
Claimant:	Andrew Stevenson	
		
insurer:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited	
		
Member:	Belinda Cassidy	
		
DATE OF DECISION:	25 October 2022	
		
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claim for statutory benefits and dispute about whether the claimant wholly or mostly at fault; claimant a resident of Queensland who collided with a Rural Fire Service vehicle which, under the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation was not required to be registered; claim therefore made again the Nominal Defendant; no appearance by claimant at teleconference; Held – the proceedings were federally impacted proceedings and application dismissed; subject of the proceedings was a dispute between a resident of one state (Mr Stevenson) and another state (SIRA as the Nominal Defendant). 	

DETERMINATION
INTRODUCTION
1.	Mr Stevenson says he was injured in a motor accident occurring on 5 March 2022 in Quarry Road, Murwillumbah on the far north coast of NSW.
2.	There appears to be no dispute that the motor accident involved a collision between Mr Stevenson’s Ford Ranger vehicle and a NSW Rural Fire Services (RFS) twin cab truck. There is however a significant dispute in this matter as to whether the RFS vehicle ran into Mr Stevenson’s vehicle or whether Mr Stevenson’s vehicle reversed into the RFS vehicle.
3.	Mr Stevenson made a claim against the Nominal Defendant because the RFS vehicle was unregistered and therefore had no third-party personal injury insurance under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act). The Nominal Defendant has allocated the claim to Allianz Australia Insurance Limited pursuant to s 2.36 of the MAI Act and Allianz is therefore, in accordance with that section, authorised to deal with the claim.
4.	Mr Stevenson’s claim is a claim for statutory benefits pursuant to Part 3 of the MAI Act and, after 26 weeks, under ss 3.11(1) and 3.28(1), Allianz terminated his statutory benefits on the basis that in its view, Mr Stevenson’s accident was caused wholly or mostly by his own fault.
5.	After seeking an internal review and Allianz affirming its decision to deny liability for ongoing benefits, Mr Stevenson lodged an application with the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) in order to determine whether he was wholly or mostly at fault.
DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE DISPUTE?
Is Mr Stevenson a resident of Queensland?

6.	At the time of the accident, Mr Stevenson was, according to his claim form, a resident of Kingaroy in Queensland.
7.	When Mr Stevenson’s dispute with the Nominal Defendant was referred to the Commission he was represented by solicitors. According to the application form lodged by those solicitors, at that time Mr Stevenson remained a resident of Kingaroy in Queensland.
8.	While he had, at the time of the accident a Victorian driver license, the vehicle
Mr Stevenson was driving was a Queensland registered vehicle and the address on his license was a Queensland address.
9.	There is no evidence before me to suggest that Mr Stevenson has at any relevant time been a resident of New South Wales.
10.	I am therefore satisfied that at all material times, Mr Stevenson was a resident of Queensland.
Who are Mr Stevenson’s proceedings brought against?
11.	Mr Stevenson’s claim was made against the Nominal Defendant.
12.	The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) is the Nominal Defendant under s 2.27 of the MAI Act.
13.	The case of Matthew Ritchie v The Nominal Defendant decided that SIRA was a part of the state of New South Wales. While unreported, the case was referred to in the reported case of Stanton v Winning where Judge Priestly said at [11]:
“Gibb DCJ held that SIRA was a part of the state of NSW. This conclusion was reached taking into account a number of factors, including that SIRA was established by statute, the State Insurance and Care Governance Act (SICGA), it performed an expressly regulatory role for compulsory insurance, with objectives as set out in s23 of the SICGA which her Honour described as “quintessentially executive / governmental in the nature, directed to the implementation of legislative schemes regulating employment, road usage and residential building”; at p8. Her Honour noted also that the board of SIRA is appointed by a minister of the NSW government, and that SIRA staff are employed in the Public Service.”
14.	While Allianz is one of the private insurers operating in the compulsory third party insurance scheme and it is Allianz which has denied Mr Stevenson’s claim, it does so for the Nominal Defendant.
15.	As SIRA is the Nominal Defendant and SIRA is a part of the state of New South Wales, I am satisfied that Mr Stevenson’s dispute in his statutory benefits claim is a dispute between a resident of Queensland and a part of the state of New South Wales.
Are these proceedings federally impacted proceedings?
16.	The Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney General for New South Wales v Gatsby determined that state tribunals cannot determine federal matters because s 77(iii) of the Constitution provides that only state courts can determine federal matters.
17.	Section 75(iv) of the Constitution provides that disputes between States, or between residents of different states or between a state and a resident of another state are federal matters.
18.	As Mr Stevenson is a resident of one state in dispute with a part of another state his dispute is a federal matter. Determining whether he is wholly or mostly at fault for his accident would require the exercise of federal jurisdiction or federal power. Because the Commission is a New South Wales tribunal and not a state court, the Commission cannot hear and determine the dispute between Mr Stevenson and the Nominal Defendant.
CONCLUSION
19.	I held a teleconference in the matter on 25 October 2022. Ms Davis was present for the insurer but there was no attendance by Mr Stevenson. I was advised by a member of the Commission’s staff that Mr Stevenson had been told about the teleconference and been provided with a link to enable him to participate.
20.	Because of the nature of the proceedings and my views as to jurisdiction, I determined I would proceed in the absence of Mr Stevenson. Ms Davis confirmed that according to her records the claimant lived in Queensland and that her client was Allianz representing the interests of the Nominal Defendant. She agreed that the proceedings were federally impacted proceedings.
21.	As the Commission has no power to determine the dispute, it follows that these proceedings before the Commission cannot remain on foot and must be dismissed.
22.	Pursuant to s 54(c) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the PIC Act) and rule 77(iv) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules these proceedings are dismissed as there is no jurisdiction to determine the dispute to which the application relates.
23.	Mr Stevenson should be aware that division 3.2 of the PIC Act provides for the determination of federal matters by enabling him to make an application to the District Court in order that a Judge of that Court can determine the dispute about the cause of his accident.