Hyland v Transport Accident Commission - [2024] VSC 641

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT BENDIGO

COMMON LAW DIVISION
CIVIL CIRCUIT LIST

S ECI 2023 01492

BETWEEN:

DE-ANNA HYLAND	Plaintiff
v
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	The Honourable Justice Forbes
WHERE HELD:	Bendigo
DATES OF HEARING:	30 September, 1 October 2024 and closing submissions 4 October 2024 in Melbourne
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 October 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hyland v Transport Accident Commission
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 641

---

NEGLIGENCE — Transport accident between vehicle and cyclist — Whether vehicle an unidentified vehicle — Requirement to make reasonable inquiries — Requirement to give notice — Material prejudice — Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) s 96 — Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512 — Harrison v Nominal Defendant (1975) 7 ALR 680 — Lakic v Transport Accident Commission [2014] VSC 291.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	J Mighell KC S Mullaly	Arnold Dallas McPherson Injury Lawyers
For the Defendant	A Moulds KC K Manning	Transport Accident Commission

Contents

A.. Introduction

B.. The evidence

B.1          De-Anna Rullo
B.2          Glenda Rullo
B.3          Troy Hyland
B.4          Laurdah Hyland
B.5          McPherson
B.6          Timothy Carrodus
B.7         Natalie German

C.. Applicable legislation

D.. Submissions

D.1 Facts
D.2Compliance with s 96 of the Act

E... Findings

E.1Identification of the vehicle under s 96(8) of the Act
E.2Compliance with notice requirements in s 96(2) of the Act

Annexure A

HER HONOUR:

A Introduction

Ms De-Anna Hyland née Rullo (the plaintiff)[1] broke her right leg whilst riding her bicycle on 21 January 2017. She alleges her injuries were caused by a vehicle that cannot be identified (the unidentified vehicle) that was travelling in the same direction as her on Lake Boga–Ultima Road, Lake Boga. The accident occurred at the intersection of that road and Long Lake Road, heading east towards Lake Boga. The plaintiff alleges that this unidentified vehicle caused her to fall from her bicycle (the accident) and did not stop at the time. Whilst waiting by the roadside for an ambulance after the accident, a vehicle did stop to render assistance (the good Samaritan vehicle).
[1]Hyland was the plaintiff’s married name and her preference is to be referred to by her maiden name of Rullo.
The plaintiff was riding in an easterly direction along a sweeping curve of Lake Boga–Ultima Road with Long Lake Road coming to a T-intersection on her left. The road was bitumen with one lane in each direction and a gravel verge. Long Lake Road was also a bitumen road and the bitumen extended across the intersection. The intersection is shown in the aerial photograph annexed to the interrogatories for the examination of the plaintiff and was marked by her answers as to the location of the accident. It is exhibited to these reasons as Annexure A.
The claim is made against the Transport Accident Commission (TAC, the defendant) pursuant to s 96 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) (the Act) on the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hyland v Transport Accident Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] VSC 641
Decision Date: 22 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiff, Hyland, brought an action against the Transport Accident Commission, the defendant, following a collision between the plaintiff’s bicycle and an unidentified vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the driver of the vehicle was negligent in failing to take reasonable care and attention. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the vehicle was an unidentified vehicle within the meaning of section 96 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic), and whether the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to identify the vehicle and given notice of the claim to the defendant in accordance with the Act.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and considered previous cases such as Vines v Djordjevitch and Harrison v Nominal Defendant, which established the principles for determining when a vehicle is considered unidentified. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take reasonable steps to identify the vehicle, including failing to report the accident to the police or attempt to locate the driver. The court also found that the plaintiff had not given notice of the claim to the defendant within the required time period. Given these findings, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not complied with the statutory requirements and that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The court further found that the plaintiff had not suffered material prejudice as a result of the delay in giving notice, as the plaintiff had not been able to establish the identity of the driver or locate the vehicle. The court also noted that the defendant had not been materially prejudiced by the delay, as it had been able to investigate the claim and defend the action. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiff's claim and awarded costs to the defendant.

In summary, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the statutory requirements for making a claim against an unidentified vehicle and that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and awarded costs to the defendant.

Orders