In Kelleher v Motor Accidents Insurance Board [2025] TASCAT 204, The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) needed to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to extend the time allowed for an insured person to apply for scheduled benefits.
The background
The Motor Accidents Insurance Board manages the compulsory third party insurance scheme for those who are injured in a motor vehicle accident in Tasmania. The scheme provides scheduled benefits (e.g. medical and income benefits) on a no-fault basis to people injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident and also allows for common law claims to be made against at-fault drivers where a person has suffered a personal injury. A portion of the vehicle registration fees funds the scheme.
On 31 January 2019, Mr Kelleher (the applicant) was driving his vehicle and, in an attempt to avoid a head-on collision, swerved and drove down a steep embankment. His vehicle was severely damaged and subsequently written off. Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Regulations 2020 (Tas) (the Regulations) required him to give written notice of injury to the MAIB within a year of the accident. TASCAT has discretionary power under regulation 10(3) to extend this period to a maximum of six years post-accident.
The applicant submitted that he did not make a claim for scheduled benefits on or after 28 February 2025, because he did not realise immediately the extent of his physical injuries.
Instead, he contended that section 5A(3) of the Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) (Limitation Act) allows the timeframe to be extended beyond six years, stating that an action for damages for negligence must not be brought after three years from the date of discoverability, and that the period mentioned in the Regulations does not commence until the action is discovered.
The decision at hearing
Senior Member Thompson found that neither the Limitation Act, nor TASCAT’s power to extend time under its own rules applied. He said that the Limitation Act does not apply as the above section only relates to an ‘action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breath of duty…’ and action is defined to ‘include any proceedings in a court of law’, and therefore does not apply to the type of application as brought to TASCAT in this instance. This is because the TASCAT is not a court of law as such, and any scheduled benefits regime is wholly created and regulated by statute.
Regarding the question of discoverability, Senior Member Thompson clarified that time runs from the date of the accident, whereas the Limitation Act addresses the date of discoverability. The difference in concepts reinforces the inapplicability of the Limitation Act.
In any event, the MAIB contended that the TASCAT rules provide it with a general power to extend or abridge the time in which an action in proceedings must be taken but this applies only to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulations. Noting the above, Regulation 10 addresses exhaustively the limitation period within which to make a claim, and therefore the general power to extend is inapplicable.
Implications for you
This decision clarifies and reinforces the strict timeframes for making claims for scheduled benefits from the MAIB in Tasmania. It confirms that the Limitation Act cannot override the express terms of the Regulations in this instance. Insurers can rely on these statutory time limits as a strong defence against late claims, as TASCAT cannot extend these limits beyond what is specified in the Regulations.
Kelleher v Motor Accidents Insurance Board [2025] TASCAT 204
Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Regulations 2020
