In the State of NSW, it is possible for an adult child to apply to the Court and seek an alteration in the distribution of their parent’s estate if it can be established that such an order would provide the child with “the proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life.” The Supreme Court of NSW recently tested this principle and awarded a son a proportion of his father’s estate even though his father left him out of the will completely.

In the matter of Xiang by his tutor Cao v Tong [2021] NSWSC 44, Xiang (the Plaintiff) was under the age of 18 years when his biological father/the deceased (“Damon”) passed away. Damon had prepared a will before his passing that left his son Xiang out of the will completely. A family provision application was subsequently made by Xiang.

In determining the application and whether it had the power to alter the will, the Court had to consider two important questions:

1. Is Xiang an “eligible person”?
2. Can the Court make a family provision order in the circumstances?

Initially, the paternity of Xiang was disputed because his birth certificate did not disclose the name of his father. However, this issue was later resolved as a paternity test did in fact prove that the deceased was Xiang’s biological father.

Once the Court was satisfied that Xiang was in fact and an eligible person, the Court then had to consider whether it had the power to step in and alter the distribution of the estate under will so that Xiang could receive a benefit from the estate.

To determine whether the Court has the power to make a family provision order, the following was considered:

• Damon’s total assets and liabilities (including any assets he held outside of NSW and Australia).
• The nature and duration of the relationship between Xiang and Damon, including the nature and extent of any obligations or responsibilities owed by Damon to Xiang. Xiang’s parents were never married. For most of his childhood he did not live with his father, however Damon did pay child support for Xiang until at least 2009.
• The Court also considered Xiang’s age, intellectual capacity, financial resources/earning capacity and financial needs. Xiang was diagnosed with Asperger’s Disorder which is one of the forms of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and was reliant on government benefits.

In his decision, His Honour Justice Hallen J accepted that there were grounds for the Court to step in and make an Order in Xiang’s favour. His Honour stated at paragraph [318] that:

To justify an order for provision under the Act, the Court, relevantly, must be satisfied that the deceased has not made “adequate provision for the proper maintenance … or advancement in life of the person in whose favour the order is to be made …”: s 59(1)(c). If that is established, the Court is empowered to order such provision out of the estate as the Court “thinks ought to be made” for the identified purposes: s 59(2).“

His Honour Justice Hallen J concluded that the Court was satisfied that adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education and advancement in life had not been made under the will and ordered that the benefit of $175,000 be paid to Xiang from his father’s estate.

His Honour Hallen J stated at paragraph [423] that:

No provision in the deceased’s Will was made for the Plaintiff, which means that this is a case where a child of the deceased, who cannot be regarded as being able bodied and self-sufficient, has been excluded, completely, from participation in the estate of one of his parents. The jurisdiction of the Court is designed to provide for an eligible person, including an adult child, where inadequate provision is made for her, or his, maintenance, education or advancement in life: Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Fraser (1995) 36 NSWLR 24 at 29 (Kirby P).“

At paragraph [434] His Honour continued and said that:

The general community expectation, by which I mean the Court’s perception of what fair and reasonable members of the community would expect of a wise and just testator, knowing all the circumstances, would expect him to have made some provision for the Plaintiff.“

This recent decision reinforces the principle that a parent still has a moral obligation to their child when they die (even if that child is an adult). If a parent does not make provision for their child in their will (or if the court finds that the benefit that the parent has given their child is not enough), then the Court has the power to step in and give the child more from the estate.  

If you have been left out of your parent’s will, then you should call our experienced team of Will Dispute Lawyers on (02) 9299 0112 to discuss your matter and see whether you have grounds to contest your parent’s will.

Quantum Meruit, meaning “what one has earned”, operates where one party has been enriched by the receipt of a benefit, which they gained at another party’s expense, and it would be unjust for the first party to retain that benefit.

The case of Roude v Helwani [2020] NSWCA 310 explored a Quantum Meruit claim, where the main point of contention was how the Court determined the ‘fair and reasonable’ cost for compensation. The key background facts of the case are as follows:

• In 2008, Adib Helwani (the ‘Plaintiff’) was engaged by Ali and Susan Roude (the ‘Defendant’) to perform electrical and plumbing work at the Defendant’s development property. 
• Prior to, and throughout the project, the parties did not prepare a written contract, quote or clearly defined scope of works.
• In 2015, the Defendant provided detailed invoices to the Plaintiff which amounted to $123,571.50.
• Throughout the course of the project, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the sum of $37,500, leaving $86,071.50 outstanding, and the Defendant sued for the latter amount.

Lower Courts

At first instance, the local court Magistrate upheld the Plaintiff’s claim and ordered that the Defendant pay the outstanding sum of $86,071.50, plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of $26,588.43. The Defendant appealed this decision for several reasons, notably that there was insufficient evidence of the ‘fair and reasonable’ cost of performing the work.

On Appeal

The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff provided no evidence of a ‘market rate’ to support the reasonableness of his invoices. The court stated that “reference to the calculation of remuneration is to be determined according to what is reasonable, rather than by reference to a market”.

Here, the plaintiff, by virtue of his 30+ years of experience as a licensed builder, electrician and plumber, was qualified to give an expert opinion as to the reasonableness of his charges, and the Defendant’s failure to challenge the invoices at the time they were issued might have amounted to an admission that the charges were reasonable. Therefore, the magistrate did not err in her finding that the charges were ‘fair and reasonable’, and the appeal was dismissed.

If you are currently working for someone without a contract in place, and you are being underpaid or not paid at all, contact our friendly solicitors today on (02) 9299 0112.

The case of Khalif & Khalif and Anor (2020) FamCA 39 explored the operation of constructive trusts in the context of property held in the name of a third party. In this case, Ms Khalif (‘wife’) submitted that her husband’s brother (‘brother’) held their matrimonial home (‘property’) by way of a constructive trust for Mr Khalif (‘husband’).

They key background facts of the case are as follows:

• In 2009, the couple moved into the property, which the brother purchased and funded.
• The husband informed the wife that the brother purchased the property, as “we can’t get the loan in our name, this is [the brother]’s way of paying me back for all of my help I gave him prior to him purchasing [one of his businesses].”
• Throughout the course of the marriage, the husband paid the brother $2500-$3000 per week for the property, which amounted to $892,500 in total.
• The husband and wife paid all utility fees and spent time and money undertaking renovations and improvements on the property.
• In 2016, the couple separated, the husband left the property and the brother issued a “Landlord’s termination notice to tenant” on the wife.

The brother asserted that the weekly payments he received from the husband was in fact rental income. The court rejected this assertion, considering, among other things, that the brother did not declare any rental income to the ATO, as well as text messages and written notes from the husband which made reference to “mortgage payments”.

The court therefore found that the payments were in “furtherance of the arrangement that the husband become the equitable beneficiary of the … property”. Hence, even if the brother had no real intention that the husband should be afforded a beneficial interest in the property, he led his brother to believe there was an intention to create a trust, which compelled the imposition of a constructive trust.

The court therefore afforded the husband a 61.25% interest in the home, which was the sums paid proportional to the purchase price. As a result, this meant that the house, upon the husband and wife’s divorce, could potentially form part of the divisible pool of assets.

If you are going through a separation or divorce and would like to know more about what proprietary interests you might have, contact our expert family lawyers today on (02) 9299 0112.

Insurers are required to undertake Work Capacity Decisions to determine whether an Injured Worker is able to return to suitable work. This can impact on your entitlement to ongoing weekly compensation payments.

When making a WCD, the insurer will consider the following:

1. Your current work capacity – Usually, the insurer will rely on the Certificates of Capacity/Fitness. The insurer can also rely on Independent Medical Examinations when deciding a current work capacity.
2. What kind of suitable employment you are able to engage in – Usually, the insurer will arrange for you to attend an assessment with a vocational assessor. A vocational assessor will consider your qualifications, training and experience when completing their report, and determine what jobs you can do.
3. What your Pre-Injury Average Weekly Earnings are and how much you can earn in the suitable employment.

What will happen if a Work Capacity Decision is made on my claim?

If the insurance company makes a WCD on your claim, then one of the following may occur:

1. There will be no change in your weekly compensation payments – This will occur if the insurer is satisfied that you have no current capacity for work, that the reduced hours/duties you are currently performing represent the extent of your work capacity, or, that there are no suitable duties/ employment available for you; or
2. A reduction in your weekly compensation payments – This will occur if you are not working, but the insurer believes that you are able to some work. This will may also occur if you are working, but the insurer believes that you can increase your hours/earnings; or
3. A cessation in your weekly compensation payments – This will occur if the insurer determines that you are able to perform work earning the same or greater than what you were earning at the time of your injury.

When will the insurance company make a WCD?

A WCD can be made at any time throughout the life of the claim, however, WCDs are usually made when you have received almost 130 weeks (2.5 years) of weekly compensation payments.

This is a crucial time in the life of the claim, because the current law states that an Injured Worker is only entitled to receive weekly compensation beyond this period, if they are assessed by the insurer as:

1. Being totally unfit for work; or
2. If they are working at least 15 hours per week and earning a minimum of $200.00.

If you do not fit this criterion, then the insurance company may cease your weekly compensation payments once you have received 130 weeks (2.5 years) of weekly compensation payments.

Insurers are not to make WCDs for Workers with Highest Needs (Workers who are assessed as suffering greater than 30% Whole Person Impairment).

How do I challenge a work capacity decision?

There are usually 2 steps in the dispute resolution process. The first is to seek an internal review of the decision from the insurer, and the next step is to refer the matter to the Personal Injury Commission (PIC).

Both of the above steps are technical in nature. Workers benefit from engaging a solicitor who specialises in workers compensation to assist them.

Recent developments in the law have permitted Injured Workers to challenge WCDs through the PIC with the assistance of approved lawyers. The decision of Oliver Roberts v University of Sydney (2021) NSWWCC 25 determined that the PIC does have power to award weekly compensation beyond 130 weeks/2.5 years of incapacity.

Will it cost me to engage a solicitor to help me?

Injured workers who engage solicitors who have been approved by the Independent Review Office (IRO) will not be required to pay legal fees associated with workers compensation disputes. Our approved solicitors at Lionheart Lawyers are able to apply for legal funding from the IRO, and your legal fees will be met by the IRO.

If your weekly benefits have been stopped because of a Work Capacity Decision, or if you have any questions about workers compensation, speak to one of our IRO approved lawyers today on (02) 9299 0112 for an obligation-free assessment of your claim.

Some insurers troll claimants’ social media to try to find information which shows a claimant presenting themselves in a manner which differs from how they present to such persons as doctors, and/or which is inconsistent with the impact that the accident has had on the injured person.

What happens if you are injured and you are pursuing a personal injury claim – should you stop using social media? The answer is ‘No’.

Below are some simple suggestions to keep in mind in order to protect your privacy:

1. Ensure that your settings on any social networking sites you subscribe to are set to private.
2. Do not accept friendship/follow requests or connection requests on social media sites from persons unfamiliar to you.
3. If you do not wish to cease posting on social media sites, do not post photos/posts which present you in a manner inconsistent with the impact that the accident has had on you. The same applies for your friends who wish to tag you in their posts.

For further information or to discuss your compensation matter generally, contact your injury compensation specialists at Lionheart Lawyers on (02) 9299 0112 for a free no-obligation initial consultation.

In addition to the rights provided to the directors of a company, s247A of the Corporations Act provides that a shareholder may make an application to a court authorising it (or another authorised person) to inspect and copy a company’s books.

Do shareholders hold a general right to the books of a company?

A shareholder of a company does not have an automatic right to inspect that company’s books and records. However, a shareholder, in their capacity as a ‘member’ of the company, may make an application to the Court for an order to inspect a company’s books.  

What is considered as the ‘books’ of a company?

Under the Corporations Act, the term ‘books’ includes:

• a register;
• any other record of information;
• financial reports or financial records, however compiled, recorded or stored; and
• any other document.

How can a shareholder request to inspect the ‘books’ of a company?

Pursuant to s247A, a shareholder of a company may make an application to the Court for an order authorising them (or another person on their behalf) to inspect the company’s books.

A person authorised by the Court to inspect the books of a company may also make copies of the books, unless the Court orders otherwise.

Requirement of ‘good faith’ and ‘proper purpose’

The Court may only make an order under s247A if it is satisfied that the shareholder is acting in ‘good faith’ and the inspection is to be made for a ‘proper purpose’. These requirements are composite and should not be considered as two separate requirements. This requirement must be proved objectively and, on a case-by-case basis.

Generally, whether an applicant (i.e. shareholder) is acting in ‘good faith’ and making the application for a ‘proper purpose’ depends on the specific facts before the Court. This can include matters such as the period that the applicant has held shares in the company, the extent and value of the applicant’s interest in the Company, and other factors the Court may deem relevant.

Examples where Courts have found that an applicant was acting in ‘good faith’ and the inspection was to be made for a ‘proper purpose’ include:

1. where a company is suspected to have engaged in unfair conduct against its members and further information is required prior to commencement of proceedings (Re Augold NL [1987] 2 Qd R 297);
2. where a member may suspect that a company’s directors are in breach of their duties and further information is required prior to commencement of proceedings (Humes Ltd v Unity APA Ltd (No 1) [1987] VR 467; or
3. where a member may reasonably suspect that a company has entered into agreements affecting the assets of value held by the company (Re Claremont Petroleum NL (No 2) [1990] 2 Qd R 310).

Can a previous shareholder inspect the company books?

Pursuant to s247A(3), a previous shareholder who is granted leave of the Court under s 237 to bring or intervene in proceedings, may apply to the Court for an order to inspect company books. The Court may make such an order only if it is satisfied that:

1. the previous shareholder is acting in good faith;
2. the inspection is to be made for the purpose connected with:
   • applying for leave under s237; or
   • bringing or intervening in proceedings with leave under that section.

If you wish to obtain further advice in relation to your inspection rights as a current shareholder, contact Lionheart Lawyers on (02) 9299 0112.

Voluntary Administration

Voluntary administration is the process where a qualified third-party insolvency professional (administrator) is appointed to take over control of a company and investigate its business, property and affairs with a view to dealing with the company’s financial difficulties in a way that maximises the chances of the company continuing in existence.

Who can appoint an administrator?

An administrator can be appointed by:

1. the board of directors of the company if they resolve that:
   • the company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent at some future time; and
   • an administrator of the company should be appointed;
2. a liquidator or provisional liquidator of the company if he or she thinks that the company is insolvent or may become insolvent at some future time; and
3. a secured party (creditor) if:
   • they are entitled to enforce a security interest in the whole, or substantially the whole, of a company’s property; and
   • that security interest has become, and is still, enforceable.

A company is insolvent if it is unable to pay all debts as and when they become due and payable.

What is the role of the administrator?

The administrator acts as the company’s agent and has control of the company’s business, property and affairs and may:

1. carry on the business and manage its property and affairs;
2. terminate or dispose of all or part of that business, and may dispose of any of the property; and
3. perform any function, and exercise any power, that the company or any of its officers could perform or exercise if the company were not under administration.

While a company is under administration, the powers of the company’s directors and other officers are suspended. However, the company continues trading.

The process

After the administrator is appointed, the voluntary administration process begins. This process includes the following:

1. Within 8 business days after the administration begins, the administrator must convene a meeting of the company’s creditors. The purpose of this meeting is to determine whether to appoint a committee of creditors and if so, who will be its members.
2. If a committee of creditors is appointed, it will consult with the administrator and consider reports by the administrator on the company’s business, property, affairs and financial circumstances.
3. The administrator must convene a second meeting of creditors either:
   • 20 business days beginning on the day after the administration begins; or
   • if the administration begins in December or less than 25 business days before Good Friday, 25 business days beginning on that day. 

At this second meeting, the creditors may resolve:

1. that the company execute a deed of company arrangement (DOCA). A DOCA is a binding arrangement between a company and its creditors governing how the company’s affairs will be dealt with; or
2. that the administration end; or
3. that the company be wound up (i.e. the company is ‘liquidated’).

Creditor’s Voluntary Liquidation

A creditors’ voluntary liquidation is the process where a company’s members resolve to voluntarily wind up the company and appoint an independent registered liquidator to take control of the company so that its affairs can be wound up in a fair way to the benefit of the company’s creditors.

Who can appoint a liquidator?

In a creditors’ voluntary liquidation, the shareholders appoint a liquidator to the company. This can occur when:

1. the company’s shareholders resolve by special resolution to liquidate the company and appoint a liquidator if they believe the company is insolvent, or likely to become insolvent; or
2. at the end of a voluntary administration, creditors resolve that the company should be wound up; or
3. a DOCA is terminated.

What is the role of the liquidator?

The liquidator’s main functions are:

1. to take possession of and sell the company’s assets;
2. to investigate and report to creditors about the company’s affairs;
3. to inquire into the failure of the company;
4. to determine the debts owed by the company and pay its creditors;
5. to distribute to shareholders any assets left over after paying the company’s creditors; and
6. finally, to have the company deregistered.

The process

After the liquidator is appointed, the process involved in the liquidation of a company is that:

1. Within 10 business days after their appointment, the liquidator must notify the creditors of their appointment and advise them of their rights;
2. Within 3 months after their appointment, the liquidator must send a report to creditors about:
   • the company’s estimated assets and liabilities;
   • inquiries undertaken and further enquiries required;
   • what happened to the company’s business;
   • the likelihood of the creditors receiving a dividend; and
   • possible recovery actions.
3. a creditors’ meeting may be held by the liquidator or the request of the creditors from time to time. The meeting can allow the creditors to approve the liquidator’s proposed course of action;
4. a committee of inspection may be formed to assist and advise the liquidator.
5. The liquidation of the company begins, and usually includes:
   • Selling or closing the business;
   • Identifying and selling the company’s assets.
   • contacting and receiving claims from creditors
   • sending progress reports to creditors
   • investigating possible criminal offences or inappropriate transactions
   • making payments to creditors (dividends).
6. The liquidation ends once the liquidator has realised and distributed all the company’s available property and reported to ASIC. The liquidator must lodge a final account of their receipts and payments (called an ‘end of administration return’) and lodge it with ASIC.  ASIC will then deregister the company 3 months after the end of administration return is lodged by the liquidator.

Our team at Lionheart Lawyers is experienced in navigating businesses through voluntary administration and/or liquidation processes. Contact us at (02) 9299 0112 to discuss further.

Upon separation, the husband retained full interest in the property, despite the wife’s contributions to their household and living expenses.  

Primary Court and Appeal

This matter was heard in the state’s courts at the time when the trial judge in the NSW Supreme Court found that there was no intention to create a trust, and nothing unconscionable arising from the husband’s retention of title. 

However, on appeal, the court found that on the evidence, there in fact was a subjective intention that the property be held jointly. This was premised on the wife’s evidence that the couple intended for the property to be transferred into both of their names when they got married.

This decision was then appealed to the High Court.

High Court Decision

The High Court concluded that the Court of Appeal did not pay close enough attention to the evidentiary inconsistencies between the wife and husband, as the husband asserted that it was only if they got married, the title might be transferred. Therefore, there was no subjective intention that the wife should acquire a proprietary interest.

However, the High Court maintained that the wife was entitled to relief, by way of a constructive trust. In determining this, the court emphasised that:

their contributions, financial and otherwise, to the acquisition of the land, the building of the house, the purchase of furniture and the making of their home, were on the basis of, and for the purposes of, that joint relationship.”

Therefore, this attracted principles of equity, as

in circumstances where the parties have lived together for years and have pooled their resources and their efforts to create a joint home, it would be unconscionable that one party is afforded the entire benefit of the property.”

The court did ultimately afford the husband a greater equitable interest in the property, in a 55:45 ratio, as his financial contributions were substantially greater than that of his wife’s.

However, the courts will also make necessary adjustments to promote practical equality. Here, the court credited the wife with the amount she would have earned and therefore contributed to their common pool of earnings, during the months that she ceased working in order to care for their child.

This case crystallised the court’s approach in Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583, in that a constructive trust should be imposed where it would be contrary to equitable principles for one party to assert an entire interest in the property.

In this case, the Supreme Court of NSW ruled in favour of a husband and wife (Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen) and awarded them their neighbour’s $9 million estate on the basis that a verbal promise made between them superseded the contents of her will. 

Background

Since the early 2000s, Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen (the plaintiffs) were neighbours of Mrs Murphy (the deceased).

In 2002, Mrs Murphy’s husband died. She had no children and her remaining family members were unable to look after her as she aged. During this period, her neighbours, Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen assisted her with some tasks around the house.

In 2004, as her need for assistance and support increased, Mrs Murphy made arrangements with her neighbours so that they could provide her with continuous care/support. In return for looking after her for the remainder of her life, Mrs Murphy promised her neighbours the entirety of her estate.

The agreement also included a condition that Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen would not undertake their proposed building work on their property as the works would impact Mrs Murphy’s view.  

In 2015, Mrs Murphy sadly passed away and the plaintiffs were only awarded $25,000 from her estate. The remainder of the estate was to be divided equally between her siblings, as set out in her last testamentary will.

Court proceedings were subsequently commenced by Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen on the basis that there was a verbal contract between them and Mrs Murphy, and that promise would override Mrs Murphy’s will.

The question before the Court was whether that agreement was enough to constitute a “binding and enforceable contract” that would revoke the will.

The basis of the claim

Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen’s case was argued on two grounds: (1) in Contract and, (2) Estoppel.

The Court was not persuaded that the terms of the “purported contractual arrangement” were disclosed with the sufficient degree of certain necessary. Thus, the Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a claim in contract.

However, the Court was satisfied that the elements of proprietary estoppel were satisfied.

When assessing whether the plaintiffs had established a claim under estoppel, the Court assessed whether the care and support that Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen provided to the deceased over the years, at the expense of their own commitments, was sufficient to constitute detrimental reliance on the deceased’s promise. 

While there was conflicting evidence on the key points, the Court ultimately found that:

• The promise between the neighbours was sufficiently clear that a reasonable expectation was created.
• Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen acted in reliance on that representation.
• The detriment of increasingly taking on the burden of care for Ms Murphy in reliance on her promise made it unconscionable to permit the agreement to be revoked.

Her Honour was satisfied that there was a sufficiently clear representation made by the deceased to the effect that, if the plaintiffs looked after her, in order for her to stay in her own home for as long as possible, then the deceased would leave both properties to the plaintiffs in return.

Decision

Conclusively, her Honour ruled in favour of Mr Moore and Ms Andreasens, and found that a verbal promise made between the neighbours superseded the contents of the deceased’s will.

Her Honour found that it was unconscionable in the circumstances for the deceased to resile from the testamentary promises and ordered that the entirety of the estate (valued at $9 million dollars) be transferred to Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen.

This recent decision illustrates why an individual should update their will, especially in circumstances where one’s intentions and personal circumstances change.

At Lionheart Lawyers, our team of Wills and Estate Lawyers will be able to guide you throughout the process to ensure that your intentions are reflected under your will.

The below is a simple checklist that you should follow after a car accident:

1. Call Emergency Services

Keep calm and assess your injuries. If anyone involved in the incident requires urgent medical attention, call 000 and ask for an ambulance to attend the scene. If anyone is trapped, or the accident presents a dangerous situation, request that that the fire brigade also attend.

Regardless of whether the accident seems minor or serious, you should call the police. Having the police attend the scene means there will be a record of who was there, what happened and will assist the police in determining who was likely at fault.

Where police do not attend the scene, you should still report the accident at your local police station as soon as you can after the accident.

When you report the accident to the police, ask for the event number. If the police do not wish to create a police report, ask for the name of the officer and record when you attended the police station.

Reporting the accident to the police is important as it records the accident’s details and it is a requirement if you wish to pursue a personal injury claim.

2. Record details about the accident and those involved

Details about the accident:

• Date and time
• Location
• Take photos of all the vehicles involved in the accident from multiple points of view, including:
  • The registration numbers of the vehicles
  • Damage to the vehicles and any property
  • Relevant traffic signs and lights
  • The entire scene.

The people involved:

• Their full name, number and address
• Take a photo of the drivers’ licence
• Registration details
• Insurance details
• Male and model of all vehicles involved.

Witnesses:

• Their full name and contact details
• Any evidence they collected (e.g. photos, videos).

3. Seek medical attention (even for non-urgent injuries)

Some injuries may not be noticeable in the shock of a car accident. Additionally, some symptoms can worsen in the days that follow.

For all non-urgent injuries, it is best to seek medical advice from your doctor to mitigate the extent of your injuries and ensure you receive proper treatment.

Your doctor’s clinical notes will also serve as a record of the injuries you sustained in the accident.

4. Notify your insurer

It is important that you notify your third-party property/comprehensive insurer of the accident and provide them with the above details.

Each company has a different set of procedures you need to follow after an accident. Generally, they will ask for as much information as possible about the accident and the parties involved.

5. Seek legal advice

Under motor vehicle accident legislation, you may be entitled to certain benefits, such as wage payments and reimbursement of treatment expenses. You may also be entitled to make a lump sum claim for your injuries and/or your economic loss and loss of superannuation benefits.

There are strict time limitations that apply to the lodgement of claims. If you do not comply with the time limit, you may be prevented from making a claim and receiving compensation.

As this is a complex area of law, we highly encourage that you seek legal advice as soon as possible to ensure you can make the most out of your entitlements.

Get in touch with your injury compensation specialists at Lionheart Lawyers today on (02) 9299 0112 for a free (and obligation free) initial assessment of your claim.