Key changes in the TAC Protocols 2026

Since 2005, the TAC Protocols have been a model collaboration between the TAC, the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) and the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) to transparently deliver appropriate benefits and compensation to those injured in transport accidents.

Through considered discussions with ALA and LIV representatives, the TAC Protocols have been updated in 2026 to streamline and improve them, reduce inefficiencies and deliver better outcomes for clients.

The updated TAC Protocols will go into effect on 30 March 2026. Below is an overview of key changes introduced in these Protocols.

Updated structure

The optimisation process sought to improve efficiency with a streamlined structure. Eight agreements have been reduced to five: an overarching Protocols Framework Agreement plus agreements for Joint Medical Examinations, Common Law, Impairment Assessment and No Fault Dispute Resolution.

To reduce duplication and simplify navigation, the former Common Law, Time Limit and Supplementary protocols have been combined into a single Common Law Protocol.

Objectives and guiding principles have been removed from individual agreements and included in the Protocols Framework Agreement. This avoids duplication and improves ease of use.

Protocols Framework Agreement

Access full text of the Protocols Framework Agreement 2026.

Protocols participation clarified

Participation requires engagement in the full suite of the TAC Protocols. This reduces ambiguity about partial adoption. Refer to Clause 1.6.

Governance strengthened

The TAC Protocols Working Group is formalised as the primary governance forum – operating by consensus across the TAC, ALA and LIV – with authority over operation, legal-costs adjudication, performance monitoring and improvement. End-of-year timeframe adjustments will be published by 30 September annually. Refer to Clause 3.

Exchange and assessment – judicious use of examinations and Documentation Standards

A shared objective to minimise unnecessary examinations and rely on treating material where sufficient; Documentation Standards maintained by PWG define “meaningful” lodgements across protocols. Refer to Clause 5.

Information handling

The Protocols Framework Agreement incorporates TAC Privacy Policy, sets expectations around the Authority to Release Information. Refer to Clauses 5.7–5.10.

Conference etiquette

Conference logistics now expressly cover online platforms and practical rules are outlined. This formalises contemporary practice. Refer to Clause 6.

Standardised TAC contact routes

A Solicitors Contact Guide centralises common enquiries reducing mis-routing and delay. Refer to Clause 8.

Remedies and escalations structured

Clear, stepped escalation pathway for all parties, with referral options for professional or ethical concerns. Refer to Clause 9.

Behaviours of Concern (BoC) codified

Shared safety expectations and reasonable risk measures (e.g., notifying examiners, arranging security, remote alternatives) are now explicit across all protocol interactions. Refer to Clause 10.

Joint Medical Examination Protocol

Access full text of the Joint Medical Examination Protocol 2026.

Process map adoption

A jointly agreed JME process map - published on TAC’s website - is now incorporated by reference. This anchors all end-to-end steps and document requirements in one place without enshrining the detail in the protocol document, so it can be updated via Protocols Working Group governance as processes and technology evolve. The process map sets clear documentation pathways for appointments scheduled under 90 days or 90 days and over, helping matters progress more quickly toward outcomes such as interim impairment payments, serious injury certificate decisions, and common law settlements. Refer to Clause 1.1.

Single-set JME expectation and dual-purpose use

The protocol now sets an explicit expectation that one coordinated set of JMEs will ordinarily assess all entitlements (e.g., impairment and serious injury). This will minimise duplication and client burden. Refer to Clause 4.2.

Clarification to Presumption Clause

Clause 4.1 is aligned more closely with the intent of Section 60(2F) of the TAA. This will improve shared understanding and application of this clause.

Agreed examiner criteria

Examiner requirements are now expressly set out: current AHPRA registration without conditions or supervision, relevant clinical experience and recency of practice, and compliance with the JME Guidelines and JME Fee Schedule. This agreed examiner criteria will support client safety, ensure quality assessments, and address unreasonable examiner billing. Refer to Clause 4.3.

Clearer guidance on when a JME may not be authorised

The optimised protocol provides clearer, more granular examples of circumstances where TAC may deny a JME request - such as psychiatry within 12 months post-accident, duplication across similar disciplines (including same AMA chapter for impairment), repeat exams in the same discipline within 12 months, examiner conflict of interest, and interstate examiners where suitable local capacity exists. This change promotes use of other available evidence and supports scheme sustainability by encouraging appropriate JME use. Refer to Clause 4.7.

Introduction of Joint Letter of Instruction templates

Letters of instruction must use the jointly developed templates and be issued as a single, agreed letter. Guided by the TAC Medical Examination Documentation Guide, the parties will exclude duplicate or irrelevant material. This will reduce duplication and improve report quality and timeliness. Refer to Clause 9.1.

Travel and telehealth modernised

Travel, accommodation and equipment arrangements are now coordinated via the JME Request Form, with 14 days’ notice required for changes. The protocol also recognises telehealth JMEs, which may be approved in line with TAC’s Telehealth Policy. Refer to Clauses 9.3 and 9.4.

Non-attendance and late cancellation rules

The protocol caps TAC payment at one non-attendance or late cancellation per approved JME specialty. This change incentivises improvements to reduce avoidable cancellations and non-attendance. Refer to Clause 9.6.

Report follow-up timetable

A new, clear cadence requires the initiating party to follow up the examiner at 14 days, then again at 21 days post-examination; if still outstanding 14 days later, the matter must be escalated and TAC will issue a 7-day request letter. This reduces report lag and sets clear accountabilities. Refer to Clause 9.7.

Addenda vs supplementary clarification

Clarification that addendum corrections don’t need pre-authorisation and attract no extra fee. Supplementary reports require joint agreement and the use of the TAC Supplementary Request form is required. This will accelerate reporting timelines while keeping quality and transparency high. Refer to Clauses 9.7 and 9.8.

Clarification in relation to Information Request

Clarifies that where the TAC has requested information to make a JME decision and that material is later obtained, the client’s lawyer must submit it via the JME lodgement process, rather than lodging a Notice of Intention to Dispute. This keeps disputes for genuine disagreements and speeds JME decisions by using the correct channel. Refer to Clause 10.4.

Common Law Protocol

Access full text of the Common Law Protocol 2026.

Early liability view to guide the pathway

The optimised protocol expressly invites client representatives to seek TAC’s preliminary view on liability at the earliest opportunity. The 2016 Common Law Protocol framed the “preliminary view” later in the serious injury flow, but this change will help select the most efficient pathway earlier and reduce avoidable steps. Refer to Clause 2.4.

Serious injury fast track clarifications

Clarifies when a fast track serious injury application isn’t suitable (e.g., contested liability or complex pre-existing conditions), reducing unnecessary referrals. Adds flexibility to support client-centred decisions: if new treating information shows the criteria are met, the matter can transition to a fast track application, even where an Impairment Assessment application has already been lodged. Refer to Clauses 3.4–3.5.

Boundaries to TAC info requests for Serious Injury decisions

Defines what a meaningful application is (aligned to the Protocols Documentation Standard) and ties decision timeframes to receipt of the required information. If further material is later considered necessary, the parties may agree a process and timeframe; if no agreement, escalate under Chapter 7. This ensures higher-quality lodgements and faster, more predictable decision timelines. Refer to Clauses 5.2 and 6.1–6.7.

Crossover claims – intent notice removed, clear timeline introduced

The optimised protocol removes the old “intent to lodge” letter step from 2016 - lawyers now lodge the Serious Injury Application directly, removing an administrative step. TAC will then (i) issue a TAC claim number within 14 days, and (ii) within 28 days advise whether the injuries are accepted as a transport accident or whether investigations are required; if no decision within 90 days, the matter may be escalated under the Protocols Framework Agreement. Refer to Clauses 5.7 and 5.8.

Streamlined 45-day decision making

The standalone preliminary view on liability step from the 2016 protocol is not retained as a separate stage; instead, the optimised protocol concentrates activity inside a tighter 45-day decision window with defined outcomes and documents. This change will enable the TAC to focus on high-value serious injury assessment activities and faster progression. Refer to Chapter 6.

Flagged denials – informal, faster engagement

Instead of defaulting to formal “flagged denial conferences,” the protocol introduces an informal online meeting to discuss the proposed decision and next steps. This will streamline engagement while preserving fairness. Refer to Clause 6.8.

Higher threshold for Particulars of Pecuniary Loss

The threshold for mandatory Particulars of Loss rises from $125,000 to $200,000, and they must be provided at least 7 days prior to conference. This focuses detailed preparation on higher-value pecuniary claims and improves readiness for settlement discussions. Refer to Clause 12.2.3.

Legal costs – new Senior Solicitor and Special Counsel category

The legal costs chapter introduces Senior Solicitor & Special Counsel category with criteria (e.g., >10 years post-admission) - formalising who can claim which counsel-level fees and when. This makes cost entitlements clearer and more predictable. Refer to Clauses 19.32–19.34.

Impairment Assessment Protocol

Access full text of the Impairment Assessment Protocol 2026.

Streamlined interim request process

Introduction of a simple interim request short form to standardise the process of requesting interim impairment benefit. These changes will give clients access to timely interim payments through a process that is efficient, transparent and consistent. Refer to Clause 4.3.

Liability decision delay safeguard

This ensures TAC’s commitment to timely communication and progression of impairment assessments, even when liability decisions are pending. Refer to Clause 7.8.

Legal cost price points clarifications

The optimised protocol clarifies when price points apply to improve predictability and reduce avoidable disputes:

The applicable impairment price point is set by the financial year in which the impairment determination is made, regardless of when a release is signed (refer to Clause 10.1.3).
The impairment bypass price point is not payable where TAC has proactively granted a serious injury certificate (refer to Clause 3.5).
Where an interim impairment benefit is paid, a meaningful Impairment Application is required to access the price point (refer to Clause 4.5.1).

No Fault Dispute Resolution Protocol

Access full text of the No Fault Dispute Resolution Protocol.

Pre-DR information access via ROI/FOI

Where information is needed to decide if a dispute exists, the protocol directs lawyers to use TAC’s Release of Information (ROI) or Freedom of Information (FOI) processes rather than lodging a DR application as an information-gathering step. This will avoid premature filings and focus DR applications on genuinely contested issues. Refer to Clauses 2.6 and 3.2.

Mandatory escalation step for Gap Rate Disputes

Before lodging a DR application about fee gaps, lawyers must first seek reconsideration from TAC; DR application follows only if still unresolved. This will ensure low-friction resolution of billing issues and reserves DR for matters that are truly contested. Refer to Clause 2.8.

Dispute pathway streams and documentation

The Dispute Resolution (DR) Application Form now requires selection of the appropriate resolution stream (fast track, standard, time limit) and uses the Protocols Documentation Standards for what to attach, with a renewed emphasis to attach a signed client statement. This will ensure clearer triage and consistent evidence exchange up-front so matters can be assessed and resolved faster. Refer to Clauses 3.2–3.6.

Early case-narrowing conference (targeted categories)

Within 28 days of lodgement TAC may request a video conference to narrow issues and agree next steps - mandatory for disputes about dental treatment, home modifications and vehicle modifications. This will ensure earlier alignment and quicker progress in complex categories. Refer to Clause 4.1.

Amendments to the 28-day document clause

TAC will provide a list and copies of all relevant information within 28 days of receiving a meaningful DR application. This will support negotiations on a complete, shared record and reduce piecemeal exchanges. Refer to Clause 4.2.

Timetable governance and stagnation safeguard

If a DR hasn’t progressed within three months and TAC has not received an update from the lawyer providing a reasonable explanation for the delay and confirming next steps, TAC may, after written notice, affirm the Decision. This will maintain momentum to resolution. Refer to Clause 4.7.

Conference scheduling improvements

This includes the removal of the requirement for plaintiff solicitors to propose three dates at lodgement, which will result in decreased administrative effort up front for law firms. TAC now proposes at least three conference dates and parties confirm in writing within 14 days; conferences should occur within 28 days of either party’s request. This will ensure faster scheduling and reduce administrative burden. Refer to Clauses 5.2–5.4.


Key changes in the TAC Protocols 2026 Since 2005, the TAC Protocols have been a model collaboration between the TAC, the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) and the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) to transparently deliver appropriate benefits and compensation to those injured in transport accidents. Through considered discussions with ALA and LIV representatives, the TAC Protocols have been updated in 2026 to streamline and improve them, reduce inefficiencies and deliver better outcomes for clients. The updated TAC Protocols will go into effect on 30 March 2026. Below is an overview of key changes introduced in these Protocols. Updated structure The optimisation process sought to improve efficiency with a streamlined structure. Eight agreements have been reduced to five: an overarching Protocols Framework Agreement plus agreements for Joint Medical Examinations, Common Law, Impairment Assessment and No Fault Dispute Resolution. To reduce duplication and simplify navigation, the former Common Law, Time Limit and Supplementary protocols have been combined into a single Common Law Protocol. Objectives and guiding principles have been removed from individual agreements and included in the Protocols Framework Agreement. This avoids duplication and improves ease of use. Protocols Framework Agreement Access full text of the Protocols Framework Agreement 2026. Protocols participation clarified Participation requires engagement in the full suite of the TAC Protocols. This reduces ambiguity about partial adoption. Refer to Clause 1.6. Governance strengthened The TAC Protocols Working Group is formalised as the primary governance forum – operating by consensus across the TAC, ALA and LIV – with authority over operation, legal-costs adjudication, performance monitoring and improvement. End-of-year timeframe adjustments will be published by 30 September annually. Refer to Clause 3. Exchange and assessment – judicious use of examinations and Documentation Standards A shared objective to minimise unnecessary examinations and rely on treating material where sufficient; Documentation Standards maintained by PWG define “meaningful” lodgements across protocols. Refer to Clause 5. Information handling The Protocols Framework Agreement incorporates TAC Privacy Policy, sets expectations around the Authority to Release Information. Refer to Clauses 5.7–5.10. Conference etiquette Conference logistics now expressly cover online platforms and practical rules are outlined. This formalises contemporary practice. Refer to Clause 6. Standardised TAC contact routes A Solicitors Contact Guide centralises common enquiries reducing mis-routing and delay. Refer to Clause 8. Remedies and escalations structured Clear, stepped escalation pathway for all parties, with referral options for professional or ethical concerns. Refer to Clause 9. Behaviours of Concern (BoC) codified Shared safety expectations and reasonable risk measures (e.g., notifying examiners, arranging security, remote alternatives) are now explicit across all protocol interactions. Refer to Clause 10. Joint Medical Examination Protocol Access full text of the Joint Medical Examination Protocol 2026. Process map adoption A jointly agreed JME process map - published on TAC’s website - is now incorporated by reference. This anchors all end-to-end steps and document requirements in one place without enshrining the detail in the protocol document, so it can be updated via Protocols Working Group governance as processes and technology evolve. The process map sets clear documentation pathways for appointments scheduled under 90 days or 90 days and over, helping matters progress more quickly toward outcomes such as interim impairment payments, serious injury certificate decisions, and common law settlements. Refer to Clause 1.1. Single-set JME expectation and dual-purpose use The protocol now sets an explicit expectation that one coordinated set of JMEs will ordinarily assess all entitlements (e.g., impairment and serious injury). This will minimise duplication and client burden. Refer to Clause 4.2. Clarification to Presumption Clause Clause 4.1 is aligned more closely with the intent of Section 60(2F) of the TAA. This will improve shared understanding and application of this clause. Agreed examiner criteria Examiner requirements are now expressly set out: current AHPRA registration without conditions or supervision, relevant clinical experience and recency of practice, and compliance with the JME Guidelines and JME Fee Schedule. This agreed examiner criteria will support client safety, ensure quality assessments, and address unreasonable examiner billing. Refer to Clause 4.3. Clearer guidance on when a JME may not be authorised The optimised protocol provides clearer, more granular examples of circumstances where TAC may deny a JME request - such as psychiatry within 12 months post-accident, duplication across similar disciplines (including same AMA chapter for impairment), repeat exams in the same discipline within 12 months, examiner conflict of interest, and interstate examiners where suitable local capacity exists. This change promotes use of other available evidence and supports scheme sustainability by encouraging appropriate JME use. Refer to Clause 4.7. Introduction of Joint Letter of Instruction templates Letters of instruction must use the jointly developed templates and be issued as a single, agreed letter. Guided by the TAC Medical Examination Documentation Guide, the parties will exclude duplicate or irrelevant material. This will reduce duplication and improve report quality and timeliness. Refer to Clause 9.1. Travel and telehealth modernised Travel, accommodation and equipment arrangements are now coordinated via the JME Request Form, with 14 days’ notice required for changes. The protocol also recognises telehealth JMEs, which may be approved in line with TAC’s Telehealth Policy. Refer to Clauses 9.3 and 9.4. Non-attendance and late cancellation rules The protocol caps TAC payment at one non-attendance or late cancellation per approved JME specialty. This change incentivises improvements to reduce avoidable cancellations and non-attendance. Refer to Clause 9.6. Report follow-up timetable A new, clear cadence requires the initiating party to follow up the examiner at 14 days, then again at 21 days post-examination; if still outstanding 14 days later, the matter must be escalated and TAC will issue a 7-day request letter. This reduces report lag and sets clear accountabilities. Refer to Clause 9.7. Addenda vs supplementary clarification Clarification that addendum corrections don’t need pre-authorisation and attract no extra fee. Supplementary reports require joint agreement and the use of the TAC Supplementary Request form is required. This will accelerate reporting timelines while keeping quality and transparency high. Refer to Clauses 9.7 and 9.8. Clarification in relation to Information Request Clarifies that where the TAC has requested information to make a JME decision and that material is later obtained, the client’s lawyer must submit it via the JME lodgement process, rather than lodging a Notice of Intention to Dispute. This keeps disputes for genuine disagreements and speeds JME decisions by using the correct channel. Refer to Clause 10.4. Common Law Protocol Access full text of the Common Law Protocol 2026. Early liability view to guide the pathway The optimised protocol expressly invites client representatives to seek TAC’s preliminary view on liability at the earliest opportunity. The 2016 Common Law Protocol framed the “preliminary view” later in the serious injury flow, but this change will help select the most efficient pathway earlier and reduce avoidable steps. Refer to Clause 2.4. Serious injury fast track clarifications Clarifies when a fast track serious injury application isn’t suitable (e.g., contested liability or complex pre-existing conditions), reducing unnecessary referrals. Adds flexibility to support client-centred decisions: if new treating information shows the criteria are met, the matter can transition to a fast track application, even where an Impairment Assessment application has already been lodged. Refer to Clauses 3.4–3.5. Boundaries to TAC info requests for Serious Injury decisions Defines what a meaningful application is (aligned to the Protocols Documentation Standard) and ties decision timeframes to receipt of the required information. If further material is later considered necessary, the parties may agree a process and timeframe; if no agreement, escalate under Chapter 7. This ensures higher-quality lodgements and faster, more predictable decision timelines. Refer to Clauses 5.2 and 6.1–6.7. Crossover claims – intent notice removed, clear timeline introduced The optimised protocol removes the old “intent to lodge” letter step from 2016 - lawyers now lodge the Serious Injury Application directly, removing an administrative step. TAC will then (i) issue a TAC claim number within 14 days, and (ii) within 28 days advise whether the injuries are accepted as a transport accident or whether investigations are required; if no decision within 90 days, the matter may be escalated under the Protocols Framework Agreement. Refer to Clauses 5.7 and 5.8. Streamlined 45-day decision making The standalone preliminary view on liability step from the 2016 protocol is not retained as a separate stage; instead, the optimised protocol concentrates activity inside a tighter 45-day decision window with defined outcomes and documents. This change will enable the TAC to focus on high-value serious injury assessment activities and faster progression. Refer to Chapter 6. Flagged denials – informal, faster engagement Instead of defaulting to formal “flagged denial conferences,” the protocol introduces an informal online meeting to discuss the proposed decision and next steps. This will streamline engagement while preserving fairness. Refer to Clause 6.8. Higher threshold for Particulars of Pecuniary Loss The threshold for mandatory Particulars of Loss rises from $125,000 to $200,000, and they must be provided at least 7 days prior to conference. This focuses detailed preparation on higher-value pecuniary claims and improves readiness for settlement discussions. Refer to Clause 12.2.3. Legal costs – new Senior Solicitor and Special Counsel category The legal costs chapter introduces Senior Solicitor & Special Counsel category with criteria (e.g., >10 years post-admission) - formalising who can claim which counsel-level fees and when. This makes cost entitlements clearer and more predictable. Refer to Clauses 19.32–19.34. Impairment Assessment Protocol Access full text of the Impairment Assessment Protocol 2026. Streamlined interim request process Introduction of a simple interim request short form to standardise the process of requesting interim impairment benefit. These changes will give clients access to timely interim payments through a process that is efficient, transparent and consistent. Refer to Clause 4.3. Liability decision delay safeguard This ensures TAC’s commitment to timely communication and progression of impairment assessments, even when liability decisions are pending. Refer to Clause 7.8. Legal cost price points clarifications The optimised protocol clarifies when price points apply to improve predictability and reduce avoidable disputes: The applicable impairment price point is set by the financial year in which the impairment determination is made, regardless of when a release is signed (refer to Clause 10.1.3). The impairment bypass price point is not payable where TAC has proactively granted a serious injury certificate (refer to Clause 3.5). Where an interim impairment benefit is paid, a meaningful Impairment Application is required to access the price point (refer to Clause 4.5.1). No Fault Dispute Resolution Protocol Access full text of the No Fault Dispute Resolution Protocol. Pre-DR information access via ROI/FOI Where information is needed to decide if a dispute exists, the protocol directs lawyers to use TAC’s Release of Information (ROI) or Freedom of Information (FOI) processes rather than lodging a DR application as an information-gathering step. This will avoid premature filings and focus DR applications on genuinely contested issues. Refer to Clauses 2.6 and 3.2. Mandatory escalation step for Gap Rate Disputes Before lodging a DR application about fee gaps, lawyers must first seek reconsideration from TAC; DR application follows only if still unresolved. This will ensure low-friction resolution of billing issues and reserves DR for matters that are truly contested. Refer to Clause 2.8. Dispute pathway streams and documentation The Dispute Resolution (DR) Application Form now requires selection of the appropriate resolution stream (fast track, standard, time limit) and uses the Protocols Documentation Standards for what to attach, with a renewed emphasis to attach a signed client statement. This will ensure clearer triage and consistent evidence exchange up-front so matters can be assessed and resolved faster. Refer to Clauses 3.2–3.6. Early case-narrowing conference (targeted categories) Within 28 days of lodgement TAC may request a video conference to narrow issues and agree next steps - mandatory for disputes about dental treatment, home modifications and vehicle modifications. This will ensure earlier alignment and quicker progress in complex categories. Refer to Clause 4.1. Amendments to the 28-day document clause TAC will provide a list and copies of all relevant information within 28 days of receiving a meaningful DR application. This will support negotiations on a complete, shared record and reduce piecemeal exchanges. Refer to Clause 4.2. Timetable governance and stagnation safeguard If a DR hasn’t progressed within three months and TAC has not received an update from the lawyer providing a reasonable explanation for the delay and confirming next steps, TAC may, after written notice, affirm the Decision. This will maintain momentum to resolution. Refer to Clause 4.7. Conference scheduling improvements This includes the removal of the requirement for plaintiff solicitors to propose three dates at lodgement, which will result in decreased administrative effort up front for law firms. TAC now proposes at least three conference dates and parties confirm in writing within 14 days; conferences should occur within 28 days of either party’s request. This will ensure faster scheduling and reduce administrative burden. Refer to Clauses 5.2–5.4.