Sparke Helmore's MAD (Motor Accidents Division) - Issue 146 - Special edition

Welcome to this special edition of Sparke Helmore’s MAD Publication – a collection of the new Personal Injury Commission (PIC) rules and directions, which commenced on 1 January 2026.

On 19 December 2025, Judge Gerard Phillips advised all PIC users of the introduction and amendment to the PIC Rules 2021, which were to commence at the start of the new year in 2026.

A link to the current PIC Rules 2021, as of 1 January 2026, is below.

Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 - NSW Legislation

We have summarised the new and amended rules likely to affect the practice of CTP insurers and solicitors below.

We can confirm that generative artificial intelligence has not been used in the production of this MAD publication.

Use of Generative AI

The recently enacted Procedural Direction 13 can be found at Procedural Direction PIC 13 – Use of Generative AI.

The new and amended rules focus heavily on the use of generative artificial intelligence in Commission proceedings in an attempt to bring the Commission into line with other courts and tribunals.

It is stated that the purpose of these rules is to maintain consistency with relevant amendments to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the Supreme Court of NSW’s Practice Note Gen 23, and the Judicial Guidelines on the use of Gen AI.

1.     Rule 33A

1. The use of generative artificial intelligence is prohibited in producing the content of a written statement lodged with the PIC.
2. All written statements must now include a statement within advising that general artificial intelligence was not used.
3. If a user has knowledge of generative artificial intelligence having been used, the individual must disclose of this.

2.     Rule 33B

1. This rule mirrors Rule 33A, however it applies to expert reports lodged with the PIC.
2. Experts must provide a statement within their report advising whether generative artificial intelligence was used.

3.     Rule 133B

1. Parties must not use any type of Artificial Intelligence technology, program or tool in PIC proceedings both in person and online.
2. The Court Security Act 2005 may be breached if a user records PIC proceedings using artificial intelligence technology. Rule 133 of the PIC Rules already expressly prohibits recording of PIC proceedings if consent is not obtained by all parties.

4.     Rule 133C

1. This rule is similar to Rule 33A, although it applies to submissions written by legal practitioners and or parties to the proceedings. It states that an author must verify in the body of the submissions that all references to evidence, citations, legal and academic authority, case law and legislative references: exist, are accurate, and are relevant to the proceedings.
2. It is noted that the use of generative artificial intelligence in writing submissions does not absolve the author of any ethical obligations to the PIC or the administration of justice.

In addition to the above rules, updates have been made to other procedural directions issued by the PIC; namely PIC 3 – Documents, and PIC 4 – Expert Witness Evidence.

Extension of time in applying for Review Applications

Rule 133A has been amended to change the test when a time extension is sought to apply for a review of a medical assessment or merit review.

In line with the above amendments, as of 1 January 2026, applications for review under s 63 of the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999, and ss 715 and 7.26 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 will have a new test that applies under Rule 133A(5)(b).

The new rule, 133A(5)(b), states that the decision-maker may extend the time for making an application for review if they are 'satisfied special circumstances exist to justify an increase in the statutory period to make the relevant application'.

Accordingly, parties seeking an extension under this rule must provide reasons why the review application has been lodged out of time and provide submissions as to why special circumstances exist.