Rachel Rogers vs NRMA Insurance

District Court New South Wales

State Insurance Regulatory Authority

Motor Accidents

Claims Assessment and Resolution Service


Issued in accordance with s 94(5) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999

Claimant Rachel Rogers
Insurer NRMA Insurance Ltd
Motor accident 16 August 2016
CARS matter number 2018/12/2970
Conference date and time 5 February 2019 at 10.00am
Conference venue and location Level 21, 1 Oxford Street, Sydney
Attendances for Claimant Mr S Roulstone, Counsel
Mr L Dannoun, Solicitor
Ms L Boyd, Claimant
Attendances for Insurer Ms L Mepstead, Solicitor


    1. The Claimant, Ms Leanne Robyn Boyd, was injured in a motor vehicle accident at Glenmore Park on 16 August 2016.
    2. The Insurer has admitted liability in full for its insured driver and the matter is therefore on for assessment of damages only.  The Claimant makes a claim under all heads of damage other than for non-economic loss.
    3. At the time of the accident, the Claimant was a single mother with two children doing some part time work through a labour hire company.  She said that she had to give up that work because of her injuries and that she has since had some other positions and is currently working full time.  She has undergone some medical treatment and has received assistance with domestic duties from her former partner.
    4. The Claimant’s Schedule of Damages is for an amount of over $400,000.00.  The Insurer however submits that the Claimant has no entitlements other than for some past treatment expenses.  It submits that the Claimant suffered only minor injuries and has made a good recovery and that the injuries suffered would not interfere with the Claimant’s earning capacity nor her ability to carry out domestic duties.
    5. Having regard to the submissions from each party, both written and oral, the issues that I am to decide are:
      1. The nature and extent of the Claimant’s injuries and disabilities.
      2. Whether the Claimant has an entitlement to and, if so, an appropriate award for treatment expenses.
      3. Whether the Claimant has an entitlement to and, if so, an appropriate award for economic loss.
      4. Whether the Claimant has an entitlement to and, if so, an appropriate award for domestic assistance.


    1. At the time of the accident the Claimant was 33 years of age.  She concedes that before the accident she had had some minor neck problems in 2003 and 2014, simply from sleeping the wrong way.  She says that she recovered in a short period of time.  She also had some longstanding issues with depression following the birth of her daughter and was on Zoloft medication for this, which is still continuing.  She had also suffered with an episode of Bells Palsy.
    2. She says however that none of these problems were affecting her capacity either for her work nor to carry out domestic duties.  She has not made any prior claim for compensation.
    3. The motor vehicle accident occurred at about 8.30 am when the Claimant’s vehicle was stationary at a round-about, as I have indicated.  The claimant saw her GP, Dr Jaffer, the following day with complaint of injury to her spine and she complained of pain in her mid and lower back on subsequent visits.
    4. That is consistent with the information the Claimant put in her Personal Injury Claim form which is dated 28 September 2016.  The Claimant said she suffered injuries to her mid and lower back.
    5. The records that I have from Dr Jaffer’s practice cease on 10 January 2017 and the Claimant saw him on a few occasions prior thereto and following the accident.  She apparently continued to consult Dr Jaffer until the end of last year when she changed to her current GP, Dr Elias, because Dr Jaffer was no longer able to provide prescriptions for her, for reasons unstated.
    6. Initially Dr Jaffer prescribed Endone, Mobic and Valium which is an indication that the Claimant’s injury was of some significance.  I do not have a report from Dr Jaffer however.
    7. In November 2016, Dr Elias noted that the Claimant was suffering from chronic low back pain following her motor vehicle accident and he referred her to One Point Health at Penrith for physiotherapy, which is yet to be undertaken.
    8. The Claimant has said that she has continued to take pain relief medication, mainly in the form of Nurofen and Panadol Extra and she herself sought some remedial massage treatment early on.
    9. Opinions have been obtained about the Claimant’s medical condition on a medico‑legal basis by both parties.
    10. For the Claimant, Dr Peter Conrad has provided two reports dated 3 October 2017 and 5 December 2018.  In his first report Dr Conrad noted that the Claimant had continuing pain, then more than a year after the accident, in her lower thoracic and upper lumbar spine.  He said that the Claimant told him this was worse when standing or sitting for long periods, bending or lifting.  It was made worse by certain household duties.  On examination he noted restriction of movement in the thoraco lumbar spine.  In his opinion, the Claimant had ongoing problems with her mid to low back as a result of the accident and he recommended an MRI scan to rule out any significant disc injury.  I am told that has not been carried out.  Dr Conrad thought at that stage the Claimant’s prognosis was guarded.
    11. Dr Conrad saw the Claimant again at the end of last year and has provided the further report that I have referred to.  He records that the Claimant told him, then more than two years after the accident, that she still had pain in her lower thoracic and upper lumbar spine, worse when standing or sitting for long periods, bending or lifting.  He again noted that certain housework aggravated the pain and that she was continuing to take pain medication.  He again noted restriction of movement in the thoraco lumbar spine.  Noting the chronicity of her symptoms, he again recommended further investigation and in his view the Claimant’s prognosis was guarded.
    12. The Claimant was seen on behalf of the Insurer by Dr Graham Hall who has provided a report dated 20 November 2018.  He noted that the Claimant was using a heat pack and deep heat patches, taking medication and seeing her new GP for her continuing back problem.  He noted the Claimant had intermittent mid back pain extending to the low back but not into the legs.  He noted that pain interfered with the Claimant’s sleep.  The Claimant told him that she did not have back pain at the time of the examination but when it was present it was across her back between the iliac crest level and the costal margin.  He diagnosed a soft tissue injury to her back and in his view the Claimant had made a virtually complete recovery.  He accepted that the Claimant did not embellish her symptoms.
    13. The Claimant told me that her back pain has continued and that this has interfered with her work and domestic activities, as I will refer to in due course.  She says she continues to take pain relief medication which she has done since the time of the accident and she has had four sessions of massage therapy to try and relieve her pain.  She has also tried heat packs and had some massages from her former partner, all without any long term relief.
    14. She says that she finds it difficult to do any heavier duties or to stand or sit for long periods or bend and lift, as she told Dr Conrad.  She says she has struggled with the housework and has needed assistance.  She continues to take medication probably two or three times a week.  She notices that driving affects her back pain after a few hours and this is of significance as she is currently working as a driver.
    15. It is clear that the Claimant has not sought a lot of medical treatment in the past, however I do not regard this as an indication that the Claimant’s injuries have been only minor, nor that she has virtually recovered, as opined by Dr Hall.  The Claimant has said that her back problems are intermittent and when she saw Dr Hall conceded that she was not in pain that day.  When seeing Dr Conrad she has been in pain and he has noted limitations of movement in her mid to low back at those times.
    16. Both Dr Conrad and Dr Hall have accepted the Claimant in her complaints, which they felt were not exaggerated.  I see no reason why I should not accept the Claimant’s complaints likewise.
    17. I accept the medical opinion which is that the Claimant has suffered a soft tissue injury of her mid to low back which remains intermittently troubling and painful and which requires ongoing treatment, now almost two and a half years since the accident.  I would accept Dr Conrad’s opinion that the Claimant’s condition has become chronic in the sense of long lasting and that with little change in her condition her prognosis would be guarded.
    18. I accept that the Claimant’s pain is aggravated by sitting or standing too long and by bending and lifting and it would be consistent that she would find some difficulties with her work and also with her home duties.
    19. I note there was a mention of a neck injury, however, this is not mentioned in any of the medical report nor records.  If there was such an injury then it appears to have been resolved.
    20. The Claimant says that her mood has been affected by her condition and says that she has found it depressing the limits on her lifestyle and activities.  Indeed I notice that during questioning at the assessment conference that the Claimant became quite teary at times when describing her condition and speaking about the effects that this has had, particularly on her employment.  I accept that it is understandable that the Claimant would be affected in this way, particularly when she has a pre-existing longstanding depressive condition.
    21. In summary I find that the Claimant has suffered a soft tissue injury of her mid to low back, with intermittent pain and restriction on activities.  After this length of time I accept the condition is chronic and likely to remain in the long term.  I also find there has been some psychological effect as I have indicated.


    1. At the assessment conference the parties were able to agree that the amount refunded to Medicare is $272.05.
    2. The Insurer has not paid any medical expenses and seeks no credit for any other payments.
    3. The Claimant says that she paid for four massages at a cost of $50.00 each with a remedial masseur at Glenmore Park.  Although she was not able to provide any receipts, I accept her statement that she undertook that treatment at her cost and that that was reasonable.
    4. In addition, the Claimant estimates that she has spent on average $5.00 per week for her medications, but again she has no receipts for this.  The Claimant has consistently said that she is using such medication and it is a minimal cost.  I would propose to allow that cost in the past in a lump sum of $650.00.
    5. Accordingly, the claimant’s past out of pocket expenses are an amount of $1,122.05.
    6. For the future, the Claimant claims an amount of over $26,000.00 for an MRI scan and for ongoing conservative treatment in the form of medication, medical supervision and physiotherapy at a cost of $2,000.00 per annum.
    7. The Insurer submits that no allowance should be made, given the limited treatment that the Claimant has had to date and also noting Dr Hall’s opinion that no future treatment is required.  It submits that an MRI scan is unlikely to be undertaken given that it has been twice recommended and not carried out.
    8. It further submits that if any allowance should be made, this would be for some short term physiotherapy as recommended by Dr Elias and for some over the counter medications.
    9. I note Dr Conrad on each occasion has indicated that the Claimant will require ongoing treatment for medication, medical supervision and physiotherapy of some $2,000.00 per year and it is that opinion on which the Claimant relies.  He has also recommended the MRI scan.
    10. I am not satisfied that the Claimant will undertake the MRI scan given that she has not done so to date.
    11. I am satisfied, however, that she will continue to use pain relief medication and will see her GP from time to time.  She says she will undertake four sessions of physiotherapy which have been currently recommended.  This may need to be on a longer term and it is clear that the visits have been restricted at this stage under the Medicare Health Plan.
    12. The Claimant is now 35 years of age and on the Medium Life Expectancies Table has a life expectancy of some 53 years.  She has, as I have found, a chronic back condition which is likely to trouble her in the long term.
    13. I think the question of any further treatment is best approached by way of a buffer and in my view an appropriate amount to compensate the Claimant for treatment in the future is an amount of $15,000.00.


    1. The Claimant says that at the time of the accident she was employed by Proquest Recruitment working at the Sigma Pharmaceutical Factory.  She says she had originally started working at those premises through a different labour hire company, known as Chandler MacLeod Group Limited.  She was employed as a picker and packer which meant going around the warehouse collecting supplies for orders and filling boxes to be sent to pharmacies throughout Sydney and country New South Wales.  From her tax records it would appear that the Claimant started this work with Chandler MacLeod in April 2016.  The Claimant said that the work involved bending, standing, squatting and moving although there was no heavy lifting required.  She said she would have to take items from shelves low to the floor and also higher up and even though she followed OHS training, there would still be some bending and stretching required.
    2. At the time of the accident she was being offered about two shifts a week and would have worked more if work had been offered to her.  She said that following the accident she had trouble with her low back pain and she had to provide Certificates from her GP for time off work.  I note Dr Jaffer issued a Certificate in September 2016 stating that the Claimant was fit for light duties for four days.
    3. The Claimant says that her employer was not happy with this position and she stopped being offered shifts and she ceased that work.
    4. Unfortunately the Claimant, although she produced PAYG Summaries and Tax Returns, did not have any details of her precise period of employment with Proquest.  Her Tax Return for that year shows her total earnings.  There was some debate as to the weekly amount that the Claimant was earning net per week at the date of the accident, but ultimately it was accepted by both parties that it was an amount of $500.00 per week, as the Claimant stated in her Personal Injury Claim Form.
    5. The Claimant says that she was then off work for a period of time until she commenced work in mid November 2016 with the APS Group (Industrial) Pty Limited which again was a labour hire company.  She was given temporary work for Coles On-Line, in delivering groceries, but she found the driving aggravated her back condition and she ceased that work on 18 January 2017.
    6. The Claimant was then unemployed and receiving Centrelink benefits until obtaining employment with Yakult on 28 March 2018.  However she was only employed for about three weeks, as a sales representative.  She gave up the work because there was a lot of travelling each way from her home and not because of her injury.
    7. The Claimant was then off work again until 18 June 2018 when she commenced her current employment as a courtesy bus driver with Penrith City Toyota.  She has to drive in the outer western suburbs of Sydney a distance of up to 200kms and she drives customers between three to twenty times per day.  She is now receiving $693.00 net per week working from 8.00am to 4.30pm full time.  She drives a Toyota Hiace Mini bus and says that she finds the work affects her back when driving and she notices a deterioration in her back condition after a few hours.  For this reason she is proposing to undertake a one semester course at TAFE in accounts payable and then to seek employment in that field.
    8. The Claimant attended school in Queensland up to Year 10 but has not undertaken any study since school.  She has worked in various retail and factory positions and has had a large number of employers over the years.  This is not surprising for a young adult of limited education, particularly with two younger children and being self-supporting.  She readily conceded that when not working she was receiving Centrelink benefits.
    9. The Claimant said that after she left APS in January 2017 she sought lighter work than she had done in the past and although she got to some interviews there were no offers of employment.
    10. Dr Hall was of the opinion that the Claimant’s injuries had not affected her return to work capacity.  He did note however that her employer was reluctant to have her resume work after learning of the accident and she had subsequently resumed full time work.
    11. Dr Conrad felt initially that the Claimant was fit to do ten to twelve hours per week of very light work such as light packing, cleaning or similar work where she was able to stand or sit at will and not lift anything more than 5kg in weight or to do repetitive lifting or bending.  He thought the Claimant needed a structured rehabilitation program but unfortunately it does not seem that that eventuated.
    12. In his second report, Dr Conrad indicated that the Claimant was working full time driving the courtesy bus and thought that that was suitable provided she was able to stand or sit at will, not lift more than 5kg in weight, have suitable rest periods during the day and not do repetitive lifting or bending.  Her daily trips would not allow much time for rest period, if any.
    13. I accept the claimant’s statement that her injuries have affected her work ability.  Whilst she was prepared to return to employment after the accident, I accept that she did have to have some time off work, for an unknown period.  Given that she was employed in a labour hire situation it is also understandable that her employer would not be happy with her having time off work and would not offer further duties.  The Claimant’s injury was not one of which her employer had any responsibility.
    14. To her credit, the Claimant sought further work but found the driving with APS aggravated her back and that would be consistent with Dr Conrad’s opinion.  She was then unfortunately off work for over a year before finding other suitable work despite her attempts to do so.  She gave up the work at Yakult for reasons unconnected with her injury and was then off work until June 2018 when she commenced her current employment.
    15. The claimant makes a claim for past loss of income from the date of accident to date at a rate of $500 per week less the earnings that she has been able to achieve in the periods of employment that I have referred to.  Alternately, she submits that her loss in this regard could be approached by way of a buffer.
    16. The Insurer submits that no allowance should be made for any past loss of earnings.  It says that the lack of documentary evidence about her time off work from Proquest is unsatisfactory and that it is likely that in fact there was no gap between that employment and her next employment at APS.  It says even after leaving APS the Claimant was fit for other work which she should have undertaken.
    17. On the material that I have been provided, I am unable to determine precisely when the Claimant finished with Proquest and whether this was some time before her employment commenced with APS.  The onus to satisfy me in this regard rests with the Claimant and I am not satisfied as to any loss of income in that period.
    18. I am satisfied, however, that the Claimant suffered a loss of income from January 2017 to March 2018 because she could not continue her driving job delivering groceries.  That would have involved long periods of driving as well as lifting and carrying heavy bags of groceries to customers’ homes.  I accept that the claimant was unable to continue in that employment.  I am satisfied that the Claimant then sought to mitigate her loss by seeking other suitable employment and continued to do this until March 2018 when she obtained her position at Yakult.  The loss of that employment, however, was not related to her injury.
    19. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate in my view to award a past loss of earnings from January 2017 to March 2018, a period of approximately 60 weeks at a rate of $500.00 per week which was the Claimant’s average earnings at the time of her accident.  That is an amount of $30,000.00 to which should be added a loss of superannuation at a rate of 11% which is an additional sum of $3,300.00.  That will make a total award for past economic loss in an amount of $33,300.00.
    20. For the future, the Claimant seeks a buffer of between $50,000.00 to $100,000.000 for her ongoing impairment of earning capacity.  She submits that her past employments would now be unsuitable and she will need to find more sedentary work, as she is planning on doing, but at this stage there is no guarantee that she will successfully complete that, given that it is now almost 20 years since her last formal study.  She submits that her ongoing limitations will mean she will have difficulty finding suitable employment and will have difficulty retaining and progressing in such employment.
    21. The Insurer submits that no allowance should be made for any future economic loss. It submits that the Claimant has demonstrated over the last few months that she is fit for full time employment and now at a wage greater than that she was earning at the time of the accident.  It again relies on the opinion of Dr Hall.
    22. I have already accepted that the Claimant suffers ongoing limitations because of her injuries.  These affect her ability to sit or stand for long periods and with lifting and bending.  It is understandable that the Claimant is experiencing difficulty with her current employment and that she notices a deterioration in her back condition after a few hours driving.  I have already set out the distances and times involved.  In addition, it is clear that her earnings now on a pro rata basis are less than she was earning at the time of the accident.  She is now earning less than $700.00 per week on a full time basis whereas she was earning $500.00 per week for an average of two days per week.  That in itself speaks of ongoing limitation on her earning capacity.
    23. It is appropriate that the Claimant seek to mitigate any loss by seeking more sedentary work and undertaking the further study that she is proposing.  However I accept that it is unknown at this stage whether that will be successful and even if it is, whether she will find employment in that field, an area where she has no experience. She would still need a sympathetic employer to be able to undertake regular changes of posture, have rest breaks and avoid any repetitive bending and lifting.
    24. I am satisfied that but for the accident, the Claimant could have continued in the type of employment that she had undertaken in the past. This included physical activities that she had undertaken without restriction.  I am satisfied that she could have progressed to full time employment, as she has evidenced by her current work, and that this would have earned her more than she is currently earning.  In my view she will be precluded from such full time work in the long term and this would not have been the case but for the accident. I accept Dr Hall’s opinion in that regard although he indicated that possibly her depression might have affected her employment.  In my view it would not have as she had been able to manage past employments without such effect.
    25. It is not possible in my view to calculate a precise amount for the Claimant’s future economic loss and it would be appropriate to approach this by way of a buffer by suggested by the Claimant.  At her age she has an approximate 31 year working life expectancy and if her loss were to be $100.00 per week over that period then calculated on the 5% tables and less the usual discount for vicissitudes, would result in a lump sum of approximately $70,000.00.  I indicate this as a guide only and not, as I have indicated, a precise calculation because of the uncertainties that I have referred to.
    26. In my view a appropriate lump sum to compensate the Claimant for her future impairment of earning capacity, which I am satisfied will be productive of financial loss, is an amount of $5,000.00 inclusive of any loss of superannuation.


    1. At the time of the accident the Claimant was living with her two young children at her home in Glenmore Park, where they continue to reside.  I am told it is an average sized dwelling with three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a yard.  I accept that before the accident the Claimant was able to carry out domestic duties, but has had difficulty since.  The Claimant says that she has struggled with much of the housework particularly work which required bending, lifting, carrying or physical effort.  She says that she has therefore had assistance from her ex-partner, Mr Jarred Brighton.  She says however that his help has been limited because he works about 11 hours a day six days per week.  Nevertheless, he has been helping with laundry, vacuuming, mopping, cleaning windows and some meal preparation.  She says however, that she is uncertain whether he will be able to continue to provide such help.
    2. I have a statement from Jason Wilson dated 31 July 2018.  He says that he noted that the Claimant had problems following the accident and that he has provided assistance since.  He says that before the accident he did not provide help inside but did do home maintenance and lawn mowing, which he has continued to do.  He says that to assist the Claimant, however, he has also undertaken vacuuming, cooking, cleaning, laundry, dishwashing, dusting and mopping and he estimates that he has spent about seven hours a week with that assistance.  That includes one hour of looking after the Claimant’s dog.  Such assistance in that regard is not compensable.
    3. The Claimant confirmed Jason Wilson’s help with these activities and for these times which would be an average of six hours a week.  I note Dr Conrad’s opinion that the Claimant would need assistance with housework, home and garden maintenance of six hours a week noting the difficulty the Claimant had with activities such as ironing, vacuuming, scrubbing and making beds.
    4. Dr Hall noted that the Claimant had had assistance from her former partner and her children.  He indicated that that would have amounted to two to four hours a week, although it is uncertain how he came to that assessment.  He also indicated that he did not regard such assistance as being “strictly necessary”.  That of course, however, is not the test.  In his opinion the Claimant was not fit to carry out all domestic duties.
    5. Consistent with the findings that I have made I think it is understandable that heavier domestic duties would aggravated the Claimant’s condition and that it would be reasonable and necessary that the Claimant have some assistance.  The question is whether such assistance has met the necessary threshold of at least six hours a week for a continuous period of six months in the past.
    6. In my view, some of the activities that Mr Brighton says he has undertaken are activities that the Claimant could have managed, for instance dusting or loading the washing machine and folding the washing.  It was certainly reasonable, however, that he provide assistance with heavier activities.
    7. On Jason Wilson’s own assessment however, which the Claimant confirms, such heavier items of their own would not amount to six hours per week.  This would seem to be a total of four hours a week which is in the range as indicated by Dr Hall.
    8. I am not satisfied, therefore, that the Claimant has established that she has met the threshold for an award of past gratuitous assistance and accordingly there will be no award.
    9. As to the future, the Claimant claims commercial domestic assistance at a rate of $35.00 per hour for a period of six hours a week and claims that for a period of ten years, resulting in a lump sum of just over $86,700.00.
    10. The Insurer submits that no allowance should be made for any future domestic assistance, relying on the opinion of Dr Hall.  It submits that in addition Dr Conrad’s view has limitations, as it has expressed in its submissions, and that in any event his opinion was only that the Claimant “might” require such level of assistance.
    11. In considering any award for commercial assistance, it is first necessary to consider whether such could continue to be provided on a gratuitous basis.  The Claimant says that Jason Wilson is finding this harder to do because of his long hours of work and that as they are no longer partners and their relationship is somewhat strained, she is uncertain how much longer he would be prepared to do this in any event.  Similarly, she has indicated that she would pay for assistance if she had funds.  I am satisfied in those circumstances that an award on a commercial basis would be appropriate, after allowing for a period of transition.
    12. The heavier activities with which the Claimant has difficulty are vacuuming, mopping, scrubbing and bathroom and ironing.  These are activities that require periods of standing and bending and lifting and which I am satisfied the Claimant would have difficulty with.  In an average size home however a period of three hours a week would be sufficient for a commercial cleaner to carry out those activities and a period of ten years would seem a conservative estimate for the period of need in the future.
    13. $35.00 per hour is also a conservative estimate of commercial assistance and allowing that amount for three hours a week is a total of $105.00 per week.  Calculated on the 5% tables for a period of ten years produces a lump sum of $43,354.00.  The amount should be discounted against the possibility that the Claimant may continue with some gratuitous assistance from Jason Wilson for a period of time and may not engage commercial help for the full period of these hours a week or for the whole period of ten years.  I propose therefore to allow a buffer for commercial domestic assistance in an amount of $35,000.00.


    1. I assess the claim as follows on the findings set out above:
Non-Economic Loss
Economic losses
Past loss of earnings (incl. superannuation and Fox v Wood) $33,300.00
Future loss of earnings (incl. superannuation) $50,000.00
Past treatment (incl. s 83 payments) $1,122.05
Future treatment $15,000.00
Catchwords $0.00
Future gratuitous care $0.00
Past commercial care $0.00
Future commercial care $35,000.00
Interest $0.00
Other $0.00
Total of economic losses and non-economic loss $0.00
Reduction for contributory negligence $0.00
    1. The claimant’s economic losses are to be reduced by and the insurer is to have credit for the following payments in accordance with s 130: NIL


  1. I assess the Claimant’s legal costs and disbursements in accordance with s 149 and 150 of the Act and the Motor Accidents Compensation Regulations 2015 in accordance with the attached Costs Calculator in the sum of $22,933.76.
  2. I discussed the Claimant’s claim for costs and disbursements with the parties at the conclusion of the assessment conference and the amounts shown in the Costs Calculator are as agreed or otherwise follow the event.

Signed:         ______________________________

Name:                         Philip J C Watson            (Claims Assessor)

Date:                           7 February 2019                  

State Insurance Regulatory Authority

Motor Accidents

Claims Assessment and Resolution Service


Issued in accordance with s 94(4) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999


This is to certify that a claim made by

Claimant Rachel Rogers
Against the Insurer NRMA Insurance Ltd
in respect of a motor accident on 16 August 2016
was assessed by Philip J C Watson
with CARS matter number 2018/12/2970

Do You Need A Lawyer?

Stop feeling like no one is on your side. We’re here to bat for you.

What Is The Cost Agreement?

Access knowledgeable advice and insights from Paramount Law towards your cost agreement.

Do You Know How To Claim?

Ready to make a claim and take the next big step in the process? We’ll show you how.

How much can you claim?

Take our 30 second test

Paramount Law specialise in all areas of compensation law and carry Accredited Specialist status.

Get in touch


    Head Office

    Level 3, 44 Chippen Street, Chippendale NSW 2008

    P (02) 9099 3199

    We also service the following areas: Liverpool, Campbelltown, Brisbane, Central Coast, Perth, Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Hong Kong and New York

    Business Hours

    Monday to Friday
    8:30am to 5:30pm

    Compensation Payout Calculator

    Please leave us your details to find out an estimated compensation amount