Understanding MAC Act legacy claims in NSW
A threshold injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) includes a soft tissue injury and a psychological or psychiatric injury that is not a recognised psychiatric illness (adjustment disorder and acute stress disorder are the usual examples; s 1.6 and Motor Accident Guidelines Part 5).
Motor accident claims arising from incidents that occurred before 1 December 2017 may still be governed by the Motor Accident Claims Act 2017 (MACA), not the current Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA). These are known as legacy claims. Unlike current CTP claims, which are administered under MAIA and include a threshold injury system, legacy claims under MACA follow a different legal framework that allows for damages based on fault and injury severity, regardless of whether the injury meets a threshold. This distinction is critical for claimants in Greater Sydney who were involved in an accident prior to 1 December 2017 and are now seeking compensation for ongoing injuries.
Key differences between legacy and current CTP claims
The most significant difference lies in how compensation is assessed. Under MACA, claimants may recover damages for pain and suffering, loss of income, and future care needs, even if the injury does not meet a threshold. In contrast, MAIA limits damages to claimants who sustain a threshold injury, and weekly benefits are capped at 52 weeks for those with only threshold injuries. Legacy claims under MACA are not subject to the 52-week limit on weekly payments, and claimants may seek damages for non-economic loss even if the injury is not severe.
Another distinction is that MACA does not include the same impairment assessment regime as MAIA. Under MACA, the extent of injury is assessed using medical evidence and expert opinion, not a formal whole person impairment (WPI) rating. This means that a claimant’s ability to recover damages depends on the nature and impact of the injury, as demonstrated by medical reports, rather than a numerical impairment score.
Practical examples from Greater Sydney
In one example, a pedestrian in Sydney’s Inner West was struck by a car at a crosswalk in August 2016. The person sustained a herniated disc and chronic back pain, requiring surgery and ongoing physiotherapy. As the accident occurred before 1 December 2017, the claim was governed by MACA. The claimant obtained a medical report from a specialist confirming permanent functional impairment and loss of earning capacity. The insurer accepted liability, and the claim proceeded to settlement based on damages for pain and suffering, loss of income, and future medical treatment. The settlement was significantly higher than what would have been available under MAIA, due to the absence of a threshold injury requirement.
In another case, a cyclist in the Northern Beaches was involved in a collision with a delivery van in March 2015. The cyclist suffered a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, which persisted for over two years. Medical records showed ongoing cognitive difficulties and reduced capacity for full-time work. The claim was processed under MACA. The claimant was awarded damages for non-economic loss and future care needs, including a lump sum for ongoing psychological support. The absence of a threshold injury requirement allowed the claim to proceed on the basis of long-term functional impact, not just a diagnosis.
Evidence and practical steps for legacy claims
To support a legacy claim under MACA, claimants must gather and preserve the following evidence:
- Medical records from the time of the accident and all subsequent treatment
- Reports from treating medical practitioners, including specialists
- A detailed statement of the injury’s impact on daily life, work, and family roles
- Proof of lost income, including payslips and employer letters
- Photographs of the accident scene, vehicle damage, and any visible injuries
- Witness statements, if available
- Correspondence with insurers and any claims forms submitted
It is essential to notify the insurer of the claim within the time limits set under MACA. While MACA does not specify a fixed time limit for making a claim, delays may affect the insurer’s ability to investigate and may impact the strength of the claim. It is advisable to notify the insurer as soon as possible after the accident.
Time limits and dispute resolution
There is no fixed time limit under MACA for commencing a claim, but delays may weaken a claim if evidence becomes unavailable or witnesses are no longer accessible. If a claim is disputed, the matter may proceed to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) or, in some cases, the Supreme Court. Disputes commonly arise over liability, the extent of injury, or the value of damages.
If the insurer refuses to accept liability or offers a settlement that does not reflect the injury’s impact, the claimant may seek a formal determination. The process involves submitting a claim form, providing evidence, and attending a hearing. Legal representation is not required but is often beneficial given the complexity of medical and financial evidence.
When to seek advice
Legacy claims under MACA are not automatically resolved through standard CTP processes. The legal framework, evidence requirements, and settlement outcomes differ significantly from current MAIA claims. Given the long-standing nature of these claims, and the potential for complex medical and financial assessments, it is advisable to seek independent legal advice before making a claim or accepting a settlement offer.
Every claim depends on its own facts. To request contact about your circumstances, complete the quick, no obligation enquiry form.