NSW CTP case-law archive
NSW CTP case notes with source details and practical analysis
Use this archive to read NSW CTP case notes with the source decision identified first: full case name, neutral citation, court or PIC division, decision date, decision-maker, issue, material facts, decision, legal principle, limitations, practical significance, author/reviewer, last checked date, and a link to the authoritative judgment or decision. Related claimant guides sit separately so the archive does not become a collection of short keyword summaries.
Page 1 of 3
Analysed NSW CTP case notes
Cheng v NRMA [2025] NSWPIC 566
A stopped vehicle in-lane, a sudden lane change ahead, and why a rear-end impact did not prove the claimant was mostly at fault.
- Full case
- Cheng v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance
- Citation
- [2025] NSWPIC 566
- Decision-maker
- Senior Member Brett Williams
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether a rear-end collision with a stationary vehicle meant the claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for statutory benefits purposes.
McManus v QBE [2026] NSWPIC 175
Single-vehicle gravel-road crash where a sudden medical episode meant the claimant was not found wholly or mostly at fault.
- Full case
- McManus v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
- Citation
- [2026] NSWPIC 175
- Decision-maker
- PIC Member
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether a single-vehicle loss-of-control accident was caused wholly or mostly by the claimant’s fault where a sudden medical episode was alleged.
Raad v Nominal Defendant [2026] NSWPIC 173
Unidentified vehicle claim where due inquiry and search was accepted despite delay arguments, keeping the Nominal Defendant pathway open.
- Full case
- Raad v Nominal Defendant by its agent Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
- Citation
- [2026] NSWPIC 173
- Decision-maker
- PIC Member
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether the claimant had made due inquiry and search to identify an unidentified vehicle for a Nominal Defendant claim.
Kojic v NRMA [2026] NSWPIC 13
Pedestrian mostly-at-fault reasoning, ongoing statutory benefits, and how Evic continues to shape the analysis.
- Full case
- Kojic v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance
- Citation
- [2026] NSWPIC 13
- Decision-maker
- Member Belinda Cassidy
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether the pedestrian claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for statutory benefits purposes.
AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic [2024] NSWSC 1272
Mostly-at-fault analysis, contributory negligence, and why single-vehicle facts do not end the enquiry.
- Full case
- AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic
- Citation
- [2024] NSWSC 1272
- Decision-maker
- Mitchelmore J
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- How ss 3.11 and 3.28 apply where an insurer says a single-vehicle accident was caused wholly or mostly by the claimant’s fault.
Bath v Allianz [2026] NSWSC 165
Why silence in early hospital records is probative but not automatically decisive against causation.
- Full case
- Bath v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
- Citation
- [2026] NSWSC 165
- Decision-maker
- Price AJA
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether a Review Panel lawfully used silence in early hospital records to reject accident causation and reduce WPI.
Park v Allianz [2026] NSWPIC 152
Mostly-at-fault pedestrian finding at 70% and why mechanism evidence outweighed competing narratives.
- Full case
- Park v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
- Citation
- [2026] NSWPIC 152
- Decision-maker
- PIC Member
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether the claimant pedestrian was wholly or mostly at fault, including the proper percentage for contributory negligence.
Zadehfard v Allianz [2025] NSWSC 1423
Procedural fairness limits in PIC medical assessments and when certificates can be quashed and remitted.
- Full case
- Zadehfard v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
- Citation
- [2025] NSWSC 1423
- Decision-maker
- Chen J
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether a PIC medical assessment certificate in a treatment dispute was affected by procedural unfairness and reviewable legal error.
Wade v QBE [2025] NSWPICMRP 1
Self-employed PAWE evidence case: amended tax return not conclusive without reconciliation to records.
- Full case
- Wade v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
- Citation
- [2025] NSWPICMRP 1
- Decision-maker
- Members Susan McTegg, Alexander Bolton and Bianca Montgomery-Hribar
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether an amended tax assessment was conclusive or sufficient proof of self-employed PAWE.
Allianz v Shahmiri [2022] NSWSC 481
PAWE under cl 4(1) is averaged across the full 12 months before accident, not only weeks worked.
- Full case
- Allianz Insurance Australia Limited v Shahmiri
- Citation
- [2022] NSWSC 481
- Decision-maker
- Harrison AsJ
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- How Schedule 1 clause 4(1) calculated PAWE where the claimant worked for part of the pre-accident year and was unemployed for the rest.
NRMA v Kwarteng [2026] NSWSC 225
Judicial review dismissed; Review Panel’s 12% WPI certificate upheld against collective-judgment challenge.
- Full case
- Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Kwarteng
- Citation
- [2026] NSWSC 225
- Decision-maker
- Griffiths AJ
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- Whether a PIC Review Panel failed to exercise collective judgment or gave inadequate reasons when increasing WPI to 12%.
Villanueva v Lifetime Care [2026] NSWPICMR 12
Attendant care hourly rate dispute: hours binding, cost reasonableness reassessed and remitted with updated rates.
- Full case
- Villanueva v Lifetime Care and Support Authority of NSW
- Citation
- [2026] NSWPICMR 12
- Decision-maker
- Merit Reviewer Cassidy
- Last checked
- 24 June 2026
- Issue
- How to assess the reasonable cost or hourly rate for family-provided attendant care where hours had already been medically assessed.
Related guides and updates
Not every useful authority page is a case note
The following pages support case-law research but are not presented as full judgment notes. They cover official data, regulatory updates, investigation issues and evidence guides that can sit beside a proper case note.
Dispute preparation FAQs
Using NSW CTP case notes without over-reading them
- What NSW CTP case law should I read before an internal review or PIC dispute?
- Start with the decision that matches the insurer reason in writing, such as threshold injury, whole person impairment, PAWE or weekly payments, treatment refusal, mostly-at-fault, nominal defendant, or evidence reliability. The closest legal issue is usually more useful than a favourable headline outcome.
- Do I need an exact matching case to succeed in a CTP dispute?
- Not usually. Most NSW CTP disputes turn on your own medical records, wage evidence, accident chronology, specialist reasoning, and whether the review or PIC pathway can consider the issue. A comparable case helps frame the question, but it does not guarantee the same result.
- How should I use a case note when preparing evidence?
- Use the case note as an evidence checklist. Quote the insurer reason, identify the matching issue, then gather the documents that answer that issue, such as treatment notes, imaging, certificates of capacity, payslips, witness material, or specialist reports.
- Why does the archive separate case notes from practical guides?
- A case note explains an authority, its facts, principle, limits, and practical significance. A practical guide explains a claimant pathway, such as internal review, medical assessment, weekly payment disputes, or treatment approval. Keeping them separate avoids treating general guides as legal authorities.