PAWE in NSW CTP claims: earnings rules and dispute steps

Under Schedule 1 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), PAWE is generally worked out from gross earnings received before the accident. For many employees the starting point is the weekly average of gross earnings received during the 12 months immediately before the accident, but the Act contains alternative rules for shorter work histories, changed employment, self-employment and other non-standard situations.

The PAWE figure is important because it becomes the baseline for weekly statutory benefits. The payable weekly amount can then change because of the entitlement period, the statutory percentage, work capacity, post-accident earnings, earning capacity and other statutory benefit rules. Check the worksheet rather than only reading the final dollar figure in the decision letter.

For scheme context, compare the insurer’s reasons with the SIRA motor accidents injury claims information and the dispute pathway explained by the Personal Injury Commission. Those sources do not decide the arithmetic for your file, but they help separate a PAWE methodology dispute from a medical capacity, treatment or threshold injury issue.

A PAWE dispute is easier to analyse when the correct category is identified first. Before arguing about arithmetic, identify which pathway best matches your work situation at the accident date:

• Standard employees: 52-week averaging, regular overtime, allowances, payslips and payroll summaries.
• Self-employed people and contractors: business income, deductible expenses, BAS records, invoices, accountant material and seasonal income patterns.
• Recent employment changes: new jobs, promotions, changed hours or pay rises shortly before the crash, including when a simple 52-week average may understate current earnings.
• Students and young people: part-time work, study-to-work transitions and evidence showing the likely earning pattern that existed or was about to start.

If more than one pathway may apply, write down both options and ask the insurer to explain why it selected one method over the other.

A PAWE decision may need review when the insurer’s reasons do not match the source documents. The practical check is document-specific, not a general assumption that the insurer is wrong. Issues to test include:

• regular overtime, loadings, allowances, commissions or bonuses being left out without explanation;
• unpaid leave, injury leave, parental leave or a temporary reduction in hours being averaged in without considering whether an alternative rule applies;
• a recent promotion, pay rise, new job or increased roster not being reflected in the calculation;
• self-employed income being reduced by expenses that do not reflect actual earning capacity, or by incomplete tax records; and
• the insurer relying on a single employer certificate when payslips, bank deposits or payroll summaries tell a different story.

If you suspect your PAWE is too low, compare the insurer worksheet against the documents before the internal review deadline. You can also ask for advice about whether the dispute should stay with the insurer first or be prepared for the Personal Injury Commission.

A useful PAWE review usually starts with the exact words in the insurer decision, not with a general complaint that the weekly payment feels wrong. Read the letter and worksheet side by side and identify:

• the PAWE period the insurer used and whether it matches your work history at the accident date;
• which earnings were included or excluded, especially overtime, commissions, allowances, bonuses and casual loadings;
• whether the insurer relied on employer certificates, payslips, tax records, bank deposits or only one source;
• whether a recent job change, promotion, business income fluctuation or study-to-work transition was considered; and
• whether the dispute is really about PAWE arithmetic, capacity for work, treatment evidence, threshold injury status or another CTP issue.

This separation matters because a PAWE amount dispute may follow a merit-review style path, while medical-capacity or treatment disputes may need different evidence and a different PIC pathway. Keep the request focused on the calculation issue you can prove from documents.

PAWE is only one input. A weekly-payment decision can involve five separate checks:

A corrected PAWE figure can affect the amount. It does not automatically prove incapacity, defeat a cessation rule or create a damages entitlement.

A PAWE review is easier to understand when the evidence is grouped by worker type and by the point each document proves.

Keep copies of the insurer decision, the PAWE worksheet, and the documents you relied on. If the dispute affects stopped or reduced weekly benefits, read this guide together with the weekly payments stopped guide and the internal review guide before choosing the next step.

Warning: this example is simplified. It is not a calculator, not legal advice and not a promise about entitlement. Individual circumstances, statutory caps, accident date, tax treatment, post-accident earnings, medical capacity and cessation rules can change the result.

Example: an employee had gross earnings of $62,400 over the 12 months before the accident. A simple annual average would start at $1,200 per week. If the insurer worksheet used only base wages and excluded regular shift allowances worth $100 per week, the PAWE issue is whether the documents support adding that recurring amount.

The weekly payment still needs separate checks. The statutory percentage depends on the entitlement period. Any post-accident earnings or earning-capacity assessment may reduce the amount. A capacity decision needs medical and vocational evidence. A cessation rule, certificate issue or fault/threshold-injury decision is not solved just because PAWE changes.

A PAWE dispute is clearer when it is structured early, before months of back-and-forth emails blur the calculation issue.

1. Day 1–2: Request the insurer worksheet and written reasons. Ask for the exact earnings components included and excluded.
2. Day 2–5: Build a one-page issue map: insurer figure vs your figure, with page references to supporting records.
3. Day 4–8: Prepare one indexed evidence pack (earnings records, leave explanations, employer/accountant letters, chronology).
4. Day 7–10: Lodge a focused internal review request that stays on PAWE methodology rather than mixing every dispute in your claim.
5. Day 10–14: If unresolved, prepare for PIC merit review with the same issue map and indexed documents so the file is reviewer-ready.

If your deadline is close, lodge the core pack first to preserve rights and then supplement evidence on a stated date.

Use this hub when the dispute is about the earnings figure itself. If the insurer has stopped weekly benefits, first separate the income-calculation issue from medical capacity and threshold-injury reasons. The weekly payments stopped guide explains that triage, while the capacity for work dispute guide covers medical work-capacity evidence.

If the PAWE calculation is the problem, move from the broad PAWE calculation guide to the work-history page that matches the evidence: standard employees, self-employed people and contractors, recent employment changes, or students and young people. Then use the internal review guide and the PIC merit review vs medical assessment guide to choose the correct review path.

After checking the PAWE method, use the guide that matches the practical problem in the insurer file. These issues are related, but each turns on different evidence and rules:

• when accepted weekly payments should begin;
• what happens if a Certificate of Fitness expires;
• casual work and multiple concurrent jobs;
• sick leave or annual leave used after the accident;
• weekly benefits where a person was unemployed or later lost work;
• how periodic CTP payments may interact with Centrelink; and
• why tax treatment depends on the legal character of the payment.

Do not assume that fixing one issue fixes the others. PAWE, work capacity, certification, payment timing, tax and social-security consequences require separate checks.