Faraji v Dambarage

The case of Faraji v Dambarage involved a dispute under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. The applicant, Ms Faraji, sought orders against the first and second respondents, Mr Dambarage and his insurer respectively, in relation to the compulsory insurance legislation. Ms Faraji was seeking to obtain information from Mr Dambarage to use in her claim for damages for personal injury from the motor vehicle accident.

The central legal issue was the extent of the duties of an insured person under the Act, specifically in relation to cooperation with their insurer. Ms Faraji argued that Mr Dambarage had failed to cooperate as required by section 47(1)(b) and had not complied with his statutory duty under section 35(1). She sought an order compelling the insurer to take specified action to remedy this default.

The court considered the statutory provisions and the nature of the duties imposed on the insured person. It found that Mr Dambarage had not complied with his duty to cooperate and that the insurer had a discretion to take action to remedy this default. The court concluded that the insurer was required to engage with Mr Dambarage to obtain his responses to the questions posed by Ms Faraji, provide him with information about his statutory duties, and either obtain his responses or his express objection to doing so. If responses were obtained, they were to be incorporated into a statutory declaration executed by Mr Dambarage.

The court made several orders to enforce these duties, including that the insurer prepare a questionnaire, engage with Mr Dambarage to obtain his responses, and provide him with information about his statutory duties. If responses were obtained, Mr Dambarage was to be requested to execute a statutory declaration. If he provided responses or claimed a reasonable excuse, the content of the information obtained and the circumstances of its acquisition were to be verified by the insurer. The court also ordered that the outcome of these actions be reported to Ms Faraji by the insurer. Finally, the court ordered that the costs of the application form part of Ms Faraji's costs in her claim against the respondents.