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
Collins v QBE [2026] NSWDC 185
Why the District Court allowed a late older-scheme fatal-accident dependency claim to continue directly against the CTP insurer after examining explanation, arguability and fair-trial prejudice.
- Full case
- Collins v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
- Citation
- [2026] NSWDC 185
- Decision-maker
- Acting Judge Levy SC
- Last checked
- 29 August 2026
- Issue
- Whether a de facto partner should receive leave to continue a late Compensation to Relatives claim arising from a 2005 fatal motorcycle accident and proceed directly against QBE as CTP insurer.
GIO v Williams [2026] NSWPICMP 414
Why limited bank and credit-card records were apparently relevant to PIRS function and pre-accident employment before a psychiatric WPI assessment.
- Full case
- AAI Limited t/as GIO v Williams
- Citation
- [2026] NSWPICMP 414
- Decision-maker
- Principal Member John Harris
- Last checked
- 26 August 2026
- Issue
- Whether GIO should have leave to issue a direction requiring the Commonwealth Bank to produce the claimant's bank statements and credit-card records before psychiatric and physical permanent impairment assessments.
Hoptman v Red Bus Services [2026] NSWDC 165
Why opening and closing public bus doors can remain part of driving even while a bus is stationary at a stop, and why a PIC court precondition still mattered.
- Full case
- Hoptman v The Entrance Red Bus Services Pty Ltd
- Citation
- [2026] NSWDC 165
- Decision-maker
- Russell SC DCJ
- Last checked
- 25 August 2026
- Issue
- Whether a passenger injured when a public bus door closed while the bus was stationary was injured as a result of the driving of the vehicle under section 1.9 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, and whether court proceedings could begin without the required PIC certificate or exemption.
GIO v Mohammed [2026] NSWSC 991
Why a later partial shoulder tear could fall within the PIC medical dispute, and how notice and submissions addressed procedural fairness.
- Full case
- AAI Ltd t/as GIO v Mohammed
- Citation
- [2026] NSWSC 991
- Decision-maker
- Griffiths AJ
- Last checked
- 25 August 2026
- Issue
- Whether a PIC Review Panel exceeded the scope of the medical dispute or denied procedural fairness by considering a later-reported partial supraspinatus tear when the original injury description referred to tendinosis and bursitis.
AAMI v Patsalis [2026] NSWSC 953
Why challenges to a 23% psychiatric WPI assessment and a refusal to refer the matter to a Review Panel failed on judicial review.
- Full case
- AAI Limited trading as AAMI v Patsalis
- Citation
- [2026] NSWSC 953
- Decision-maker
- Harrison AsJ
- Last checked
- 11 August 2026
- Issue
- Whether a psychiatric WPI certificate and the President’s Delegate’s refusal to refer it to a Review Panel were affected by legal error because of disputed histories, alleged inadequate reasons, clause 6.41 and the section 7.26 gatekeeping test.
Marcella v NRMA [2026] NSWPIC 437
Why early histories, vehicle damage and expert assumptions supported a wholly-or-mostly-at-fault finding when a car moved from a kerbside parking space.
- Full case
- Marcella v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance
- Citation
- [2026] NSWPIC 437
- Decision-maker
- Member Belinda Cassidy
- Last checked
- 8 August 2026
- Issue
- Whether the claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for the purposes of ongoing weekly payments and treatment-and-care statutory benefits after a collision while leaving a kerbside parking space.
Jazairy v GIO [2026] NSWSC 939
Why a challenge to a psychiatric WPI Review Panel failed despite disputes about new evidence, procedural fairness and apprehended bias.
- Full case
- Jazairy v AAI Limited t/as GIO Insurance
- Citation
- [2026] NSWSC 939
- Decision-maker
- Muston J
- Last checked
- 8 August 2026
- Issue
- Whether a psychiatric WPI Review Panel decision should be set aside because of additional evidence, procedural unfairness, the conduct of a panel assessor or apprehended bias.
Mandoukos v Allianz [2026] NSWSC 911
Why accident-related surgery removing healthy cervical facet-joint bone was a further bodily injury and not a threshold injury.
- Full case
- Mandoukos v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd
- Citation
- [2026] NSWSC 911
- Decision-maker
- Schmidt AJ
- Last checked
- 31 July 2026
- Issue
- Whether the permanent removal of healthy bone during accident-related cervical spine surgery was a further bodily injury and therefore not a threshold injury.
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.
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.