Motor Accident Compensation in the ACT: Part 5 – How Motor Accident Disputes Are Resolved

This article continues our series on motor accident compensation in the ACT. You can read about the features of the ACT motor accident compensation scheme in part 4.

Dispute Resolution in the ACT

Unlike NSW, the ACT does not operate a statutory Dispute Resolution Service (DRS), nor does it incorporate mandatory internal review or merit review structures for CTP insurers. Disputes in the ACT are managed within a common law, fault-based framework under the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT) (“RT(TPI) Act”), supplemented by the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Regulation and internal insurer guidelines.

If a claimant is dissatisfied with an insurer’s decision relating to liability, quantum, or payment of treatment and rehabilitation expenses, the claimant may request the insurer reconsider its position. If the matter does not resolve, disputes may progress through pre-litigation procedures and, ultimately, the ACT Supreme Court. There is no statutory concept of Pre-Accident Weekly Earnings (PAWE) or statutory income benefits, as the ACT does not provide statutory weekly compensation.

The ACT Government does fund limited CTP Legal Assistance Schemes for low-income claimants to obtain legal advice regarding CTP disputes, although these programs are not widely publicised.

Definition of “Earner” (Common Law Context)

Because the ACT has no statutory benefits scheme, there is no statutory definition of “earner” as exists under the NSW MAIA. Instead, a person’s employment status is relevant in assessing common law damages, including:

• past loss of earnings
• future economic loss
• loss of earning capacity

An “earner” in the ACT context is considered by reference to ordinary common law principles, which examine:

• whether the claimant was employed or self-employed before the accident
• whether they had an established earning history
• whether they had a genuine expectation of employment (e.g., job offer, contract, apprenticeship)

Determining Liability for Damages

Once a claim for damages is made, disputes about liability are resolved through negotiation, compulsory conferences, or proceedings in the ACT Supreme Court. There is no statutory assessment of liability, nor any equivalent to a binding or non-binding DRS Certificate.

An insurer’s denial of liability has no effect on a claimant’s right to commence court proceedings. Liability disputes are determined according to:

• the RT(TPI) Act 2008 (ACT)
• the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT)
• the common law principles of negligence

Insurers face potential cost consequences if they maintain unsuccessful liability defences.

Restrictions on Medico-Legal Evidence

The ACT does not operate an “authorised practitioner” list and does not restrict expert evidence through statutory medical guidelines as NSW does. Instead, medico-legal evidence is governed by the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) and the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).

Expert evidence must comply with:

• the ACT Expert Witness Code of Conduct
• relevance and admissibility under Evidence Act ss 55–79
• procedural fairness

Accordingly, parties may rely on treating practitioners or independent medical experts of their choosing, subject to court rules.

Regulation of Costs

The ACT scheme does not include the extensive statutory costs regulations found in MAIA. Legal costs in CTP matters are regulated by:

• the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT)
• ACT Solicitor Conduct Rules
• Court scale costs

Costs remain substantially governed by common law and court discretion.

Time Limits and Key Procedural Requirements

The ACT does not impose MAIA-style statutory notification or review deadlines. Instead, the key requirements are:

Limitation period for damages claims

• Proceedings must be commenced within 3 years of the motor accident (Limitation Act 1985 (ACT)).

Pre-litigation requirements (RT(TPI) Act 2008)

• Claimants must give insurers a written notice of claim as soon as practicable.
• Insurers must respond within a reasonable time and may admit or deny liability.
• Parties must engage in reasonable pre-court settlement discussions.

Compulsory conference (Supreme Court rules)

• The parties must attend a compulsory conference before commencing formal litigation unless exempted by the Court.

 

Disclosure obligations

• Parties must exchange medical reports, economic loss documentation, and expert evidence in accordance with court rules.

Failure to minimise loss

• A claimant’s damages may be reduced if they fail to mitigate their loss under common law principles.

Settlement of Damages

• There are no statutory restrictions preventing settlement within a defined time frame.
• The only constraints are the limitation period and approval requirements for settlements involving minors or persons under management.

Medical Assessment and Dispute Resolution

Unlike NSW, the ACT has no statutory medical assessment service. Medical disputes are resolved through:

• medical experts jointly appointed or separately retained
• compulsory conferences
• court-appointed experts (if ordered)
• judicial determination at trial

There is no statutory limit on medical assessments.

Comment

Because the ACT scheme is grounded in pure common law principles, it avoids many of the procedural complexities of the MAIA. Nonetheless, the ACT system presents its own challenges:

• insurers may adopt inconsistent approaches to liability and quantum
• there is no statutory review body equivalent to the DRS
• expert evidence disputes must be resolved entirely through court processes
• catastrophic injuries may fall under the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme, creating interaction issues with common law damages
• there can be significant variation in settlement timelines because no statutory framework compels early decision-making

Read more about Motor Accident Compensation in the ACT in part 6 of the series, “Medical Assessment Processes”.