Background
Falak Shair Akbar was injured while driving for Uber in January 2023, when a parked car door struck him. Allianz accepted liability under the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), paid statutory benefits and treatment costs, and funded rehabilitation services. An orthopaedic assessment put his whole-person impairment at 8%, below the statutory threshold for non-economic loss.
Represented by solicitors, Mr Akbar settled his economic-loss claim with Allianz in December 2023 by deed. In 2025 he sued to set the settlement aside, alleging that a rehabilitation provider had threatened that Allianz would stop his weekly benefits unless he pursued work, and that Allianz was responsible for the threat. He also contended that spinal and other injuries had been missed before settlement.
The Court’s Holding
Schmidt AJ dismissed the claim. Mr Akbar had not established unconscionable conduct, economic duress, misrepresentation, manipulation, or a breach of the Motor Accident Guidelines for which Allianz was responsible.
The Court was not satisfied that the rehabilitation provider was Allianz’s agent, that the alleged threat was made, or that it caused Mr Akbar to settle. Contemporary records instead showed advice about the statutory consequences of failing to engage in reasonable rehabilitation and return-to-work activity. Allianz had not threatened to discontinue benefits and had continued paying them until settlement.
Mr Akbar was legally represented, actively instructed his lawyers on settlement terms, and had the deed explained to him before signing. The Court rejected his claim that legal advice did not influence him and found no special disadvantage known to or exploited by Allianz. A 2026 medical report assessing a higher impairment did not justify undoing the 2023 settlement, particularly given different instructions and Mr Akbar’s later injuries in an explosion in Pakistan.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant seeking to set aside a settlement must prove a recognised basis for doing so, such as duress or unconscionable conduct.
- Funding a rehabilitation provider under the statutory scheme does not, without more, make that provider the insurer’s agent.
- Independent legal advice, informed settlement instructions, and execution of a deed strongly undermine a later challenge to the settlement.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the high evidentiary burden facing a represented claimant seeking to reopen a motor-accident settlement. Allegations of serious misconduct require cogent proof, particularly where contemporaneous documents and conduct point to an informed compromise.
The Court also noted that, even if the settlement had been set aside, it could not award the statutory benefits or $5 million damages sought without the assessment or exemption processes required by the statutory scheme.