Lee v Lee

In Lee v Lee, the plaintiff sought damages from the third defendant, the compulsory third party insurer, after suffering catastrophic spinal injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant, who was an experienced driver, was negligent in causing the accident while driving the Tarago. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed that he himself was driving at the time of the accident. The third defendant denied liability and counterclaimed, asserting that the plaintiff was the actual driver and that he was unlicensed and inexperienced, rendering him wholly responsible for his injuries. The quantum of damages was not in dispute; only the identity of the driver at the time of the accident remained contested.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff or the first defendant was driving the Tarago when the accident occurred. This involved examining the credibility of the plaintiff's evidence and the plausibility of his account, given his lack of driving experience and the absence of any driving lessons or a learner's permit. The court also needed to assess the third defendant's counterclaim that any payments made to the plaintiff were induced by deceit, given the plaintiff's assertion that the first defendant was driving.

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was not credible and that it was more likely than not that the plaintiff was the driver at the time of the accident. The court accepted that the plaintiff had never driven a motor vehicle before and had only undertaken online practice tests for a learner’s permit. The court further found that the third defendant had been misled by the plaintiff and others into believing that the first defendant was the driver. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the third defendant on both the plaintiff's claim and the insurer's counterclaim. The court decided to hear the parties regarding the form of orders and costs.