A full-time Uber driver billed $200,000 for asking clients about a car crash. A NSW tribunal was unimpressed.
In a decision handed down on 19 January 2026, Merit Reviewer Katherine Ruschen shut down what can only be described as a creative approach to cost recovery, disallowing $450,000 in claims from a tutor and an unlicensed "investigator" in a motor accident matter against QBE Insurance.
The case, CMB v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMR 1, stems from an accident on 23 August 2022. The injured claimant, identified only as CMB, is a person under legal incapacity and had a tutor appointed to manage their statutory benefits claim.
By August 2025, the Personal Injury Commission had already found the claimant mostly at fault and awarded maximum regulated costs, which QBE duly paid. But then came a second bill.
The tutor, referred to as ML, submitted a claim for $250,000 in administrative costs, charging $400 per hour. A layperson identified as SGG sought $200,000 at $200 per hour for what the claimant described as "the equivalent of over 1,000 hours of investigative labour."
What did that labour involve? According to SGG's own letter, he assisted with putting up posters in at least three physical locations, posted in community WhatsApp groups, and asked many of his clients nearby in an attempt to find a witness.
The results spoke for themselves. "No one seems to have any information about that accident," SGG admitted in his correspondence.
Ruschen urged caution about the letter's veracity, noting that SGG's name was spelt two different ways in the same document.
The rejection rested on firm legal ground. Under section 8.10(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, costs must actually be "incurred" by the claimant. There was no evidence CMB had paid either ML or SGG, or had any obligation to do so.
More fundamentally, the High Court's 1994 decision in Cachia v Hanes makes clear that laypersons cannot recover costs for their time spent on litigation. That principle, Ruschen confirmed, extends to tutors acting for people with legal incapacity.
Clause 20 of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 does allow recovery for professional investigation reports. But an Uber driver's enquiries do not qualify. SGG held no licence under the Security Industry Act 1997, making it unlikely he could have engaged in meaningful investigation activities such as accessing property records or obtaining information from local authorities.
The claimant, Ruschen observed, would likely have been "far better served by solicitors, a professional interpreter and a professional investigator with relevant qualifications and skill to undertake the work more efficiently and meaningfully."
The ruling also dismissed several interlocutory requests, including demands for subpoenas and access to "publicly funded data" under Commonwealth legislation that had no application to the matter.
For insurers, the decision reinforces that the cost recovery framework remains robust. Layperson bills dressed up as professional services will not pass muster, no matter how creatively they are presented.
