A recent decision by the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) confirms that in some situations, the cost of caring for a household pet can qualify as an "attendant care service" under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA). This means that, where an injured person is unable to care for their pet due to their accident-related injuries, the cost of pet care may be claimable as part of their treatment expenses.
Background
In the case of Chowdhury v Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 167,the PIC was asked to determine whether pet care costs could be recovered under the statutory benefits regime of the MAIA.
Mr Chowdhury sustained injuries including a fractured ankle and a left wrist injury in a motor vehicle accident on 11 November 2024. These injuries rendered him temporarily unable to perform basic household tasks, including caring for his three cats. The care involved everyday responsibilities such as:
- Feeding the cats
- Changing the litter trays
- Topping up their water bowls.
Mr Chowdhury claimed the costs associated with outsourcing these pet care tasks as a form of treatment expense. The insurer declined to pay, stating that pet care fell outside the scope of "treatment and care" as defined by the MAIA. After an internal review upheld the denial, Mr Chowdhury filed an application for the dispute to be determined with the PIC
Legal Framework
Under section 3.24 of the MAIA, an injured person is entitled to statutory benefits to cover the costs of treatment and care, provided the expenses are both:
- Reasonable and necessary, and
- Related to injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.
The term "treatment and care" is defined exhaustively under section 1.4 of the MAIA and includes a list of eleven services. Among these is "attendant care services", which the legislation defines as:
"Services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks, and includes (for example) personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance and domestic services."
The key legal question in this case was whether pet care specifically, for household cats could be characterised as an "attendant care service."
Member's findings
The PIC ultimately found in Mr Chowdhury's favour. The Member concluded that the care of the claimant's cats fell squarely within the definition of "attendant care services" for the following reasons:
- Feeding and watering a pet are basic, everyday domestic tasks.
- While not performed daily, cleaning litter trays is considered a regular and routine household chore.
- The examples provided in the legislation (e.g. domestic services) are not exclusive. They serve as a guide to understanding what may be included in attendant care services.
- Because the cats were part of the household unit, their care can be reasonably classified as a domestic service required to maintain everyday living.
In short, the PIC confirmed that tasks related to the care of household pets can fall under the umbrella of "attendant care services," making them potentially compensable under the MAIA.
Importantly, the PIC also clarified that:
- Any dispute about whether the services are reasonable, necessary, or injury-related falls under the domain of a medical assessment.
- Disputes about whether the cost of services is fair or recoverable are to be resolved by merit review.
Why this case matters
This decision provides valuable clarity for both injured claimants and insurers. It recognises that household pets are often integral to a person's domestic life and that caring for them can be part of routine daily living - particularly for individuals living alone or without alternative support.
The ruling may set a precedent for similar future claims, particularly in cases where the pet is clearly part of the claimant's household and the outsourced tasks are ones the injured person would have ordinarily performed themselves.
Household companion or commercial asset?
While the PIC recognised household pet care as a domestic service, it drew a clear line between animals kept as pets and animals kept for other purposes.
The key distinction lies in how the animals are kept and cared for. Pets like Mr Chowdhury's cats, which live in the home and are treated as companions, are considered part of daily domestic life. In contrast, animals kept for hobbies such as dogs used for competitive showing or personal interest may not qualify if they are not genuinely integrated into the household.
Commercial animals such as livestock, breeding dogs, or animals raised for sale are unlikely to fall within the definition of domestic services, and care for them may not be compensable under MAIA.
For instance:
- A dog that sleeps on the bed and is fed in the kitchen is likely to qualify.
- A pack of dogs kept in an external kennel for breeding or business purposes probably won't.
That doesn't mean those losses are irrelevant, they just fall under a different head of damages:
- Hobby animals may be considered under non-economic loss, such as loss of enjoyment or inability to undertake the relevant hobby.
- Commercial animals may be relevant to a claim for economic loss, particularly if the claimant relied on the animal for income or business purposes.
Takeaway for claimants and practitioners
If you've been injured in a motor vehicle accident and are unable to care for a household pet, it is now clearer that these expenses may be claimable as long as the care relates to a pet that is genuinely part of your home life, and the services being provided are of a domestic nature.
This case underscores the importance of detailed factual evidence, including:
- The pet's role in the household
- The nature and frequency of care
- The injured person's limitations due to the motor vehicle accident
Injury recovery isn't just about medicine and this case highlights that domestic needs, like pet care, can be part of the broader picture.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
