McLennan v Nominal Defendant

Case [2014] NSWCA 332


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: McLennan v Nominal Defendant [2014] NSWCA 332
Hearing dates:23 June 2014
Decision date: 25 September 2014
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Emmett JA at [33];
Simpson J at [127]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - claim against Nominal Defendant - whether the appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident - whether, if so, the appellant's injuries were the result of the driver's negligence - whether the appellant had undertaken "due inquiry and search" for the purposes of s 34 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) in order to ascertain the identity of the motor vehicle
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 34
Cases Cited: Guest v The Nominal Defendant [2006] NSWCA 77
Harrison v Nominal Defendant (1975) 50 ALJR 330
Holloway v McFeeters [1956] HCA 25; 94 CLR 470
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298
Nominal Defendant v McLennan [2012] NSWCA 148
Nominal Defendant v Meakes [2012] NSWCA 66
Nominal Defendant v Puglisi (1984) 54 ALR 636
Nominal Defendant v Ross [2014] NSWCA 212
Oztan v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 23 MVR 259
Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds ("The Popi M") [1985] 1 WLR 948
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Terrence McLennan (Appellant)
Nominal Defendant (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M Daley (Appellant)
J Poulos QC with J Ryan (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Brydens Compensation Lawyers (Appellant)
Moray & Agnew (Respondent)
File Number(s):2013/168169
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9101
Date of Decision:
2013-05-17 00:00:00
Before:
Garling ADCJ
File Number(s):
2004/193754

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: On 5 September 2000, the appellant, Terrence McLennan, suffered significant physical injuries whilst on his way to work. He said that he left home at about 4:30am and drove to Holsworthy railway station, intending to catch a train to the city at about 5am. He said in his evidence that he reached the car park of the railway station: he claimed to have been there for approximately four hours before driving home, reaching his house at about 10am. What happened to him in the interim was by no means clear. His case against the Nominal Defendant depended upon him being hit by a motor vehicle in the car park of Holsworthy railway station. If his own account were to be believed, he arrived at the railway station, parked his car, took his jacket and shut his car in order to proceed to the platform to catch his train. He later regained consciousness at about 9am, some two hours after sunrise, lying between two…

Continue reading McLennan v Nominal Defendant

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McLennan v Nominal Defendant [2014] NSWCA 332
Case
[2014] NSWCA 332
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, McLennan, brought a claim against the Nominal Defendant alleging injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The appeal concerned the appellant's compliance with the requirements of section 34 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW), which mandates "due inquiry and search" to ascertain the identity of a motor vehicle involved in an accident before a claim can be made against the Nominal Defendant. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant had indeed been injured in a motor vehicle accident, and if so, whether the driver of the unidentified vehicle had been negligent. Crucially, the court was required to determine whether the appellant had satisfied the "due inquiry and search" requirement under section 34 of the Act, which is a prerequisite for pursuing a claim against the Nominal Defendant when the identity of the vehicle cannot be established.

The court found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that she had undertaken the requisite "due inquiry and search" as mandated by section 34 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). This failure meant that the statutory preconditions for making a claim against the Nominal Defendant were not met. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.