Decision
Jaggi v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2026] NSWPICMR 30
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
A Claimant is injured in a motor accident. He was already on workers compensation benefits as a consequence of a prior work injury.
Is the Claimant entitled to weekly payments from both the CTP Insurer and the Workers Compensation Insurer for the same period?
In Jaggi v AAMI, a Merit Reviewer determined that the Claimant had not suffered any loss of earnings, as a consequence of the injury he sustained in the motor accident given the ongoing weekly payments he continued to receive from the Workers Compensation Insurer.
The Merit Reviewer also determined that the Claimant’s bid to recover weekly payments from both Insurers offended the rule against double compensation.
Principles
✅ In addition to being “an earner” and suffering an injury, a claimant is not entitled to weekly payments unless they establish that the injury caused a loss of earnings.
✅ A claimant has not suffered any loss of earnings if they are already totally incapacitated for work as a consequence of a prior work injury.
✅ A claimant is not entitled to weekly payments from a CTP Insurer and a Workers Compensation Insurer, for the same period, because that would be contrary to the rule against double compensation.
Facts
The Claimant was injured in a motor accident on 26 April 2024.
The Claimant subsequently made a request for the back payment of weekly benefits for the period from 13 January 2025 to 25 March 2025.
Prior to his motor accident, however, the Claimant lodged a workers compensation claim for a psychiatric injury. The Claimant was certified unfit to work, as a consequence of his work injury, from 13 June 2024 to 21 March 2025.
The Insurer refused the Claimant’s request on the grounds that the Claimant received workers compensation benefits for the same period and, therefore, had not suffered a total or partial loss of earnings for that period.
The Insurer’s determination was affirmed on Internal Review and the Claimant sought Merit Review.
The Merit Reviewer’s Decision
The Merit Reviewer agreed that the Claimant was not entitled to weekly payments, from the CTP Insurer, for the relevant period, for the following reasons:
🟪 To satisfy the requirements of section 3.7 of MAIA, and to become entitled to weekly payments, a claimant must demonstrate they were “an earner”, they were injured as a result of a motor accident and they suffered a total or partial loss of earnings as a result of that injury.
🟪 In this dispute, the Claimant was “an earner” and the motor accident caused him an injury.
🟪 The Claimant, however, did not lose any earnings as a consequence of the injuries he sustained in the motor accident because he was already certified totally unfit for work by reason of his prior work injury.
🟪 Even if the Claimant satisfied the requirements of s 3.7(1) – which he does not – he would not be entitled to weekly payments from the CTP Insurer because he had already received weekly payments, for the same period, from the Workers Compensation Insurer. Compensating the Claimant for the same period would offend the rule against double compensation.
My Perspective
The decision in Jaggi confirms what should, perhaps, be obvious; namely, that a Claimant cannot receive weekly payments from both the CTP Insurer and a Workers Compensation Insurer for the same period, even if the payments relate to injuries sustained in different accidents.
(Indeed, the Merit Reviewer expressed concern that the Claimant also appeared to have received NewStart benefits for the same period.)
As the Merit Reviewer observed, the rule against double compensation was neatly defined by Chen J in McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Limited v Mangos & Ors (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1327, at [53] as follows:
“The rule has been explained as a principle (`the principle of full satisfaction prevents double recovery’), and it reflects the fundamental idea that a party `cannot recover in the aggregate from one or more defendants an amount in excess of [their] loss.”
PJH