That's not the same as a finding that the pilot and co-pilot were negligent. As far as I am aware, there have been no procedings to which the pilot or co-pilot were parties in which they have admitted negligence or been found negligent. (There could be proceedings with this outcome, but I'm not aware of them.)
PelAir conceded liability. Given they were always going to be found liable, there was no downside and several advantages to admitting liability:
1. It prevented all the regulatory deficiencies being debated in court, and hence protected the PelAir / Rex brand
2. PelAir conceded
"the crash had been caused by the negligence of the pilot and co-pilot, for which it had vicarious liability." This kept the spotlight off all the deficiencies of PelAir itself - and also CASA! From the outset, the position of both organisations has been that the pilot was almost solely responsible for the crash.
3. There may have been a thought that by admitting liability for the crash, the contested issue (PTSD) would go better for them.