Decision
Malek v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPIC 564
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
An injured Claimant seeks to recover the cost of packing and unpacking, when moving home, as a treatment and care expense.
Are packing services an “attendant care service” as contemplated by the definition in s 1.4?
In Malek v QBE, a PIC Member concluded that packing services do not fit within the definition of “attendant care services” because they are not an everyday task, per se, and they do not fall within one of the four examples in the definition which might render them an everyday task for the purpose of the definition.
Principles
✅ The words “…services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks…” in the definition of “attendant care services” in section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) represent the operative words of the definition.
✅ An activity may be brought within the concept of an “everyday task” if they fit within one of the four examples after the comma in the definition of “attendant care services”.
✅ Packing and unpacking a home, when moving house, is not an “everyday task” per se and does not fit within any of the examples of an “everyday task” in the definition of “attendant care services”.
Facts
The Claimant alleged that a motor accident in December 2025 caused injuries to her neck and back.
A dispute subsequently developed between her and the Insurer about whether she could recover the cost of packing and unpacking household goods when she moved house. She argued that doing the packing and unpacking herself would have aggravated her neck and back injuries.
The Insured denied the request on the grounds that packing did not fall within the definition of “attendant care services” in section 1.4 of MAIA and was therefore, not recoverable as a treatment and care expense.
Relevant Definitions
Section 3.24 of the MAIA states, in general terms, that an injured person is entitled to statutory benefits for treatment and care provided to the injured person, provided the treatment and care is reasonable and necessary and related to the injuries sustained in the motor accident.
Section 1.4 of MAIA provides a definition of “treatment and care“, which includes an exhaustive list of eleven types of treatment and care. One of those items is “attendant care services“.
Section 1.4 of MAIA defines “attendant care services” as “services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks, and includes (for example) personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance and domestic services“.
The Member’s Decision
The Member concluded that the disputed packing costs did not fall within the definition of “attendant care services” for the following reasons:
🟪 Packing and unpacking household goods during a move is clearly not a form of “personal assistance”, “nursing” or “home maintenance” as those activities appear in the definition of “attendant care services”. The only example left in the definition is “domestic services”.
🟪 Packing up the contents of a home is not an “ordinary household purpose” and does not come within the ordinary English meaning of the words “domestic services”.
🟪 It follows that packing services are not brought within the definition of “everyday tasks” because they are not one of the four examples after the comma in the definition of “attendant care services” in s 1.4.
🟪 Furthermore, packing services do not fall within the concept of “services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks…” because packing and unpacking a home is not a mundane or usual task, because it is associated with a major endeavour which occurs infrequently.
My Perspective
The decision in Malek is the first PIC Decision, of which I am aware, which seeks to apply the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Chowdhury [2025] NSWSC 1392 (aka, “the pet care case”).
The Member asked herself two questions:
1️⃣ Do packing services fall within one of the examples of an attendant care service which appear, after the comma, in the section 1.4 definition, so as to bring packing services within the concept of an “everyday task”?
2️⃣ Do packing services meet the operative words in the definition, namely ““services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks…”?
Having answered each question in the negative, the Member concluded that packing services are not an attendant care service, as defined in section 1.4.
PJH
The purpose of this case note is educational and should not be relied upon as legal or financial advice. My commentary is only current as at the time of publication. Readers affected by the issues raised in this case note should seek bespoke legal advice, noting that I act for CTP Insurers and I do not accept direct instructions from those injured in motor accidents.