Maric v Nominal Defendant

The appeal in *Maric v Nominal Defendant* concerned a claim brought by the appellant against the Nominal Defendant under section 33(1) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). The appellant had been injured in a motorcycle accident and alleged that the accident was caused by the second respondent, Mr Morrissey, who was riding an uninsured and unregistered motorcycle. The primary judge had dismissed the appellant's claim, finding that while the accident was caused by Mr Morrissey's negligence, it did not occur on a "road" as defined by the relevant legislation.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that the accident occurred on a "road" and in finding that the appellant was contributorily negligent. The Nominal Defendant, by notice of contention, argued that the primary judge should have dismissed the claim on the basis that the appellant had not established negligence on the part of Mr Morrissey. The resolution of these issues hinged on the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the accident.

The Court noted that the only direct evidence concerning the accident came from the appellant and Mr Morrissey. The primary judge made adverse findings regarding the reliability of both witnesses, finding their accounts had changed significantly over time and were not entirely consistent. These findings were not challenged on appeal. The Court found that, in the absence of independent evidence, the primary judge did not err in not being satisfied that the accident occurred on a "road". However, the Court found that the primary judge did err in his finding of contributory negligence.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, with no order as to the costs of the second respondent.