Pet Care Costs recognised as CTP Statutory Benefits in Landmark NSW Supreme Court Decision

Have you sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and require your pet to be cared for whilst you recover?

The NSW Supreme Court decision of Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Chowdhury [2025] NSWSC 1392 has provided significant insights into the interpretation of statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). The case addressed whether the cost of pet care services are compensable as part of statutory benefits for treatment and care following a claimant sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle accident.

Background

The case arose from a motor vehicle accident on 11 November 2024, where Mr Chowdhury sustained injuries, including a fractured right ankle and a left wrist injury. As a result, he was hospitalised for five weeks and faced mobility challenges post-discharge. Mr Chowdhury, who owned three cats, claimed statutory benefits for services related to feeding, watering, and changing the litter of his pets, arguing that these tasks were part of his everyday domestic responsibilities.

NRMA, the CTP insurer, refused to cover the costs of pet care services, leading Mr Chowdhury to commence proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission. The Commission determined that these services fell within the interpretation of statutory benefits, prompting NRMA to seek judicial review of the decision to the Supreme Court of NSW.

Key Legal Issues

The primary legal issue in this case was the interpretation of “attendant care services” under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). Specifically, the Court was tasked with determining whether pet care services could be classified as “treatment and care” within the meaning of the Act.

Legislation

Under section 3.24 of the Act, injured persons are entitled to statutory benefits for reasonable and necessary treatment and care expenses incurred in connection with their injuries. The term “treatment and care” is defined in Section 1.4 to include various services, such as medical treatment, rehabilitation, and attendant care services. “Attendant care services” are further defined as services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks, including personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance, and domestic services.

Supreme Court’s Decision

Everyday Tasks and Domestic Services

The Court acknowledged that feeding, watering, and changing the litter of domestic pets are everyday tasks. It further noted that these tasks could be considered “domestic services”, as they are inherently connected to the home and serve ordinary household purposes.

Statutory Interpretation

The Court emphasised the importance of interpreting statutory language in its ordinary English meaning unless there is a compelling reason to adopt a narrower legal meaning. It found that the definition of “attendant care services” in the Act was broad enough to encompass pet care services, as these tasks aim to assist injured persons with their everyday responsibilities.

Legislative History and Policy Considerations

NRMA argued that the legislative history of the Act and its predecessor statutes suggested an intention to exclude pet care services from compensable benefits. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the 2017 Act introduced a new scheme of statutory benefits that expanded the scope of compensation in several respects. The Court also highlighted the flexibility of the statutory language, which allows for case-by-case interpretation to address the real needs of injured persons.

Precedent and Common Law

NRMA relied on the decision in Geaghan v D’Aubert [2002] NSWCA 260, which held that damages at common law were not recoverable for gratuitous pet care services. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the statutory benefits regime under the 2017 Act is fundamentally different from common law damages. The Court concluded that the unavailability of common law damages for pet care services does not preclude their inclusion within the statutory benefits scheme.

Decision

The Court upheld the decision of the Personal Injury Commission, finding that pet care services are compensable as statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). It dismissed NRMA’s summons and ordered the insurer to pay the claimant’s legal costs.

Implications

This decision confirms that the Act’s broad language allows for the inclusion of non-traditional services, such as pet care, within the scope of compensable treatment and care expenses. The case also highlights the importance of considering the practical needs of injured persons and the flexibility of the statutory scheme to address individual circumstances. By recognising pet care services as compensable, the Court has reinforced the Act’s purpose of providing comprehensive support to claimant’s whilst they recover from their injuries.