Nasrolahzadeh v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
[2024] NSWPIC 67
•20 February 2024
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Nasrolahzadeh v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2024] NSWPIC 67 |
| CLAIMANT: | Zahra Nasrolahzadeh |
| INSURER: | Allianz Australia Insurance Limited |
| MEMBER: | Elizabeth Medland |
DATE OF DECISION: | 20 February 2024 |
| CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; miscellaneous claims dispute under sections 3.11 and 3.28; claimant the driver of a vehicle that involved in two consecutive motor accidents; after initial collision in lane 3 of the M4 Motorway, the claimant merged into lane 2 which resulted in a rear end collision with her vehicle; insured vehicle a semi-trailer; determination as to whether claimant mostly at fault; dashcam footage from insured truck considered; expert analysis of braking times considered; Held – claimant mostly at fault; costs awarded in the amount of $1,500 plus GST. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE Issued under s 7.36(4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act2017 1. For the purposes of s 3.11 the motor accident was not caused by the fault of another person. 2. For the purposes of s 3.28 the motor accident was caused mostly by the fault of the injured person. 3. Legal costs: costs are awarded in favour of the claimant in the total amount of $1,500 plus GST. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
Ms Zahra Nasrolahzadeh (the claimant) is a 56-year-old woman who on 31 May 2022 was driving on the M4 Motorway in Sydney when she suffered injury in two consecutive motor accidents. An initial accident occurred in the third lane of the Motorway, between the claimant’s vehicle and a vehicle attempting to merge into the claimant’s lane. Thereafter, a further motor accident occurred, which forms the subject of this dispute. Such accident occurred as the claimant attempted to merge across the Motorway after the initial accident, and in the process a rear end collision occurred with the claimant’s vehicle.
A miscellaneous claims dispute has arisen between the parties as to whether the claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for the accident pursuant to ss 3.11 and 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).
The claimant lodged an Application for Personal Injury Benefits (claim form) with Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (the insurer), the insurer of the vehicle the claimant considers at fault.
Liability for payment of statutory benefits was initially accepted by the insurer. However, in a notice dated 6 April 2023 the insurer denied ongoing benefits beyond 26 weeks on the basis that the claimant was considered as being wholly at fault for the accident.
An internal review was requested, and the insurer affirmed the original decision in a determination dated 24 April 2023.
An application was subsequently lodged with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) seeking a determination of the dispute. The matter has been allocated to me as a Member of the Commission.
Originally, the claimant had lodged two separate applications with the Commission, in respect of each of the motor accidents.
I held a number of teleconferences concurrently with the parties in both applications. Delays were experienced whilst the insurers awaited further liability/investigation information. I eventually set the matter down for an assessment conference. However, the day before the scheduled assessment conference the insurer in the related matter accepted liability and a Notice of Discontinuance was subsequently lodged. Accordingly, only the subject application remained on foot.
An assessment conference took place via Microsoft Teams on 30 November 2023. The claimant gave evidence at the conference. The insured driver was not available to give evidence.
DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED
I have considered the documents provided by the parties in the complete bundles of all documents relied upon by the parties. I have also considered any further material provided by the parties. The material includes dashcam footage from the insured vehicle, which I have viewed.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 3.11 of the MAI Act provides as follows:
“(1) An injured person is not entitled to weekly payments of statutory benefits under this Division for any period of loss of earnings or earning capacity that occurs more than 26 weeks after the motor accident concerned if-
(a) the motor accident was caused wholly or mostly by the fault of the person, or
(b) the person’s only injuries resulting from the motor accident were minor injuries.
(2) A motor accident was caused mostly by the fault of a person if the contributory negligence of the person in relation to the motor accident (as referred to in section 3.38) was greater than 61%.”
Section 3.28 of the MAI Act provides as follows:
“(1) An injured person is not entitled to statutory benefits under this Division for treatment and care expenses incurred more than 26 weeks after the motor accident concerned if—
(a) the motor accident was caused wholly or mostly by the fault of the person and the person was over 16 years of age at the time of the motor accident, or
(b) the person’s only injuries resulting from the motor accident were minor injuries.
(2) A motor accident was caused mostly by the fault of a person if the contributory negligence of the person in relation to the motor accident (as referred to in section 3.38) was greater than 61%.
(3) Despite subsection (1), statutory benefits under this Division for treatment and care expenses incurred more than 26 weeks after the motor accident concerned are payable in respect of minor injuries if the Motor Accident Guidelines authorise their payment. The payment for those expenses may be so authorised if the treatment or care will improve the recovery of the injured person, the insurer delayed approval for the treatment and care expenses or in other appropriate circumstances.”
Pursuant to Schedule 2 cl (3)(d) and (e) of the MAI Act, a dispute relating to ss 3.11 and 3.28 are declared as miscellaneous claims assessment matters for the purposes of Part 7 of the MAI Act.
Section 7.42 of the MAI Act provides that a dispute as to a miscellaneous claims assessment matter can be referred to the Commission for assessment.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The claimant’s versions of events
The claim form dated 15 June 2022
The claimant describes the accident as follows:
“I was travelling in the 3rd lane from the left on the M4 when a vehicle travelling in the 2nd lane from the left attempted to merge into my lane when it was not safe to do so, resulting in that vehicle colliding with the passenger side of my vehicle (first accident – NRMA). Following that collision, I merged in to the 2nd lane with the intention of then merging into the very left lane and then the slip lane so that I could pull over and exchange details with the other driver. After I merged into the 2nd lane, another vehicle collided with the rear of my vehicle (second accident).”
Claimant’s statement dated 12 December 2022
The claimant states she was driving her son’s Mazda 3 bearing NSW at the relevant time. She confirms that the weather was fine and that she had clear vision of the roadway from inside the vehicle.
She explains that she was not very familiar with the M4 Motorway at the time of the accident, however, confirms that she was travelling in the second lane from the median strip. The roadway had four lanes.
The claimant states that as she was travelling in the third lane, a Ford Falcon attempted to merge from the left into her lane which caused a collision with her passenger door. That other vehicle then veered to the far left before coming to a stop in the emergency lane.
The claimant states that as a result of that first collision she slowed her vehicle and the vehicles behind her also slowed down.
She then states from paragraph 28 as follows:
“I then changed lane to my left in an attempt to stop in the emergency lane and exchange details with the at-fault driver.
I merged onto the left lane (third lane from the right) when there was enough time and space to do so.
The second accident occurred after I had fully and successfully merged onto the said lane which is when a vehicle … collided with the rear of the vehicle travelling behind me …forcing that vehicle into the rear of my vehicle.”
The claimant was taken to hospital via ambulance and the NSW Police came to see her at her home on or about 14 July 2022. An interpreter was arranged who spoke to the claimant over the telephone. The claimant told NSW Police her version of events. A document was provided to her written in English. The claimant explains that she does not know how to read English and did not understand what she was signing. She also states: “I know very little about cars. I don’t know different shapes of vehicles and refer to them interchangeably.”
NSW Police material
Police report
The police report records the accident as being reported on 31 May 2022. The report records the details of four vehicles involved in the accident. Vehicle one being the claimant’s vehicle, vehicle two being the Ford Falcon involved in the first accident, vehicle three being a Mitsubishi Triton utility, and vehicle four being the insured semi trailer. The report notes that they held the claimant’s vehicle to be the “unit” responsible.
The crash summary details included in the report are as follows:
“About 3:15pm on Tuesday the 31st of May, 2022 Veh1 was travelling west in lane 4 of on the M4 Motorway approaching the Roper Road intersection. About this time veh2 was travelling in lane 3 of 4 parallel to Veh1.
Veh1 attempted to merge into lane 3 failing to give way to Veh2. The nearside of Veh1 collided with the front offside of Veh2. Veh1 continued travelling in Lane 4. Veh2 moved to the side of the road and came to a stop.
Veh3 was travelling west in lane 3 behind Veh2. Veh4 was following Veh3.
Veh1 attempted to merge into lane 3 without notice in the process failing to give way to Veh3. The rear nearside of Veh1 collided with the front offside of Veh3. The collision caused Veh1 to lose control and enter the shoulder area. Veh3 slowed heavily as a result and Veh4 collided with the rear of Veh3.”
Other police material
It is apparent that a request was made under the Government Information Public Access (GIPA) Act 2009. Some of the resultant material is before me.
The material includes a handwritten questionnaire with questions and answers apparently given by the claimant. It is signed 14 July 2022. It has limited material therein and is essentially limited to information regarding her travel speed. The claimant states that she does not remember her speed prior to the impact. Noting the footage from a police bodyworn camera it is apparent that this was filled out by an officer during an interview with the claimant in her home.
There are photographs of vehicles involved. The white utility is observed to have very extensive back end damage and significant damage to the front end.
The insured vehicle demonstrates some front end damage.
The police material includes “COPS” entries. It states that police attended upon the claimant on 14 July 2022 with the assistance of an interpreter. It is stated that police cautioned her and asked her why she was changing lanes prior to the impact at a very slow speed. She stated that it was due to her left hand outer mirror being damaged during the first accident. Police advised her that she should have used her rear vision mirror. It is stated that she would be receiving a penalty notice for negligent driving which would be posted in the mail.
Before me is footage from police body worn cameras. One of these clips has a witness who evidently was in lane three or four leading up to the accident. He tells police that the claimant completely stopped in lane two and a “truck and dog” was “minding his own business”, and the truck driver “did not see it coming”.
A second clip appears to depict the other driver involved in the first collision. He notes the collision occurred with his vehicle and he moved over straight away but the claimant kept on going for around 100m.
There is also a clip with what appears to be the insured driver. He explains that he noticed traffic slowing down in lanes three and four and that he “may have” started to back off. He stated he could not see at the front of the line of traffic what was happening but he noticed the claimant’s vehicle moving across the lanes to his right and into his lane. He noted the “triton” between the claimant and himself. He stated the triton began to brake and he did as well. He looked to his side to see if it was safe to move, however, there was a vehicle there so he had no choice but to move straight ahead.
Lastly, is a video clip of police interviewing the claimant in her home. The interview is conducted with the assistance of an interpreter over the phone. The police explained that she was being issued with a “ticket” for negligent driving owing to her failing to take care when merging lanes on a motorway which is signposted at 110kmph. Police also explain that “veh3” being the insured driver would also be receiving a “ticket”.
Her answers are consistent with the material summarised above.
Dashcam footage
I have viewed the dashcam footage from the insured vehicle that depicts the accident. Two separate files are provided. One being 9 seconds in length and the other 13 seconds in length.
The 9 second clip begins with the insured travelling in lane two of four. Lane four to the right has a line of traffic moving slowly at least to the point of the insured vehicle. Lane three has a number of vehicles also “banked up” moving slowly, however, some distance ahead of the insured. The footage begins with what appears to show the white utility – being “veh3” noted in the police report, just completing a change of lane from lane three to lane two in front of the insured driver. Prior to this changing of lanes the insured driver had no vehicles ahead of him for a considerable distance ahead. The brake lights of veh3 illuminate a number of seconds after the lane change. The footage depicts the claimant’s vehicle change lanes ahead of veh3 into lane two and come to a stop.
The 13 second clip begins with veh3 already fully in lane two ahead of the insured. The lane is flowing freely with veh3 in front. In lanes three and four (to the right of the insured) is a line of several vehicles travelling very slowly, with brake lights illuminated in several vehicles momentarily at the beginning of the footage.
Statement of Aaron Edwards dated 6 September 2022
Mr Edwards is the driver of “veh3” the Mitsubishi Triton utility. He provided the statement to investigators instructed by the insurer of his vehicle. The statement has a signature, however, the signature is placed in the “witness” space rather than the space marked by “signature”.
He states that he was at a speed of about 70-80kmph. He noted that the traffic slowed and he therefore put his left hand indicator on and went left into the second lane from the left at about the same speed. He noticed the traffic in the lane to the right slowed down and he slowed down a bit. He noticed the claimant’s small dark grey hatch back pull into the lane in front of him and stop. He does not think the vehicle indicated the manoeuvre and recalled thinking “what on earth is this person doing”.
He then states that he braked hard and his vehicle stopped around one foot from the claimant’s vehicle. He looked in his rear vision mirror he saw a large truck and knew in an instant the vehicle would hit him and he braced for impact.
The material relied upon by the insurer also includes a liability notice from NRMA insurance to Mr Edwards in respect of a claim for statutory benefits made by him in respect of the accident. The notice accepts that Mr Edwards was not wholly or mostly at fault for the accident.
Statement of Thomas Jason Beesley-Lowings dated 2 June 2023
This statement was obtained by the insurer’s investigators. Mr Beesley-Lowings is the insured driver in the related accident mentioned above.
He explains that he was travelling in a westerly direction on the M4, the same direction as the claimant and the insured. He describes the traffic flow as medium and he was travelling in lane two.
He noticed a Camry vehicle travel next to him and past him in lane three. The Camry then changed lane into lane two in front of Mr Beesley-Lowings and started to slow down. He then put on his right hand indicator and moved to lane three after forming the opinion it was safe to do after checking his mirrors.
He states that he was about one third to two thirds into the merge when he felt an impact with the middle of the offside of his vehicle. That impact was with the claimant’s vehicle.
He then changed lanes to lane one and then pulled to the side of the road to the left in the breakdown lane. He then exited his vehicle.
He saw the claimant’s vehicle stationary around 150-200m from him. He explains that he is aware that there was a second accident but did not witness.
Traffic Engineer report of Tia Gaffney of William Keramidas & Associates dated
31 October 2023
This report was prepared at the request of the insurer.
Ms Gaffney after considering the evidence, including the dashcam footage, concludes that the insured Kenworth semi trailer truck commenced to brake to a stop at about 5.2 seconds before the collision when the truck was about 109m away from the point of impact.
Ms Gaffney opines:
“…this was the first opportunity for the insured to brake based on the visual cues available (noting that the Claimant did not start to merge into Lane 2 until after the point). The Insured Driver braked at a rate of approximately -0.3g, which is consistent with a panic level of braking for a heavy truck.”
Ms Gaffney goes on to conclude that in order to avoid the collision the insured would have had to brake at the same point, but at a maximum rate of -0.5g. This is described as an “extremely harsh” level of panic braking. It is stated that such level of braking can have significant adverse effects including a collision with a following vehicle, jackknifing and possible rollover.
It is suggested by Ms Gaffney that the insured “could not possibly have known or anticipated that the Mazda…would come to a complete stop in Lane 2”. Ms Gaffney concludes that the insured applied an appropriate level of avoidance braking in the given circumstance and that a suggestion that a higher level of braking should have been applied is only obvious with hindsight reasoning and would not be warranted in the circumstances.
Ms Gaffney opines that the accident was caused by the merging behaviour of the claimant. In making this conclusion, Ms Gaffney calculates that the claimant’s merging into lane two became obvious at about 4.4 seconds before the subject collision and at a point where there was an unsafe merging distance available. It is also noted that prior to Mr Edwards “abruptly” [BG1] changing into the Insured’s lane, there were no vehicles ahead of the Insured.
With the assistance of the dashcam footage the report helpfully sets out key elements of the accident sequence. The insured speed is estimated through positional analysis to be approximately 100kmph initially. The speed decreases, with the braking commencing approximately 5.2 seconds prior to impact. The speed of the insured immediately before the impact is estimated to be approximately 54kmph.
It is further stated at page 29 as follows[BG2] :
“The utility’s brakes can be seen illuminating at approximately 2.87s on the TG clock. In time, this coincides approximately with when the Kenworth begins to decelerate. With the impact at about 8.27s on the TG clock (Figure 27), the braking by Mr Edwards commenced about 5.4s before impact. The utility decelerates at an approximate rate of -0.52g, and subsequently more rapidly at about -0.85g until the point where it comes to rest at about 6.18s on the TG clock.
The level of braking by Mr Edwards can be considered borderline between harsh (i.e. panic) with the immediate pre-impact braking at a maximum emergency level. The level of braking of the Insured Driver signifies hard (i.e. panic) level braking. As is expected, the utility’s rate of deceleration is higher than the significantly larger Kenworth (with possibly heavy/valuable cargo and more rigid tyres).”
Ms Gaffney notes several visual cues that may have initiated a hazard response by the insured driver. This includes the line of traffic in lane three, the braking of Mr Edwards and the merging of the claimant’s vehicle from lane two to three.
It is estimated that the braking of the insured driver commenced about two-tenths of a second after the utility (Mr Edwards) commenced braking. The braking started before there was any visible merging of the claimant’s vehicle. Accordingly, it is opined that the braking should be accepted as a pre-emptive precautionary measure.
Ms Gaffney states that it is not possible, from a human factors hazard-response perspective for the insured to have emergency braked any earlier. It is noted that from the viewpoint of the insured driver, when the claimant began merging it was about 4.4 seconds before the collision, and at such point the insured driver was already braking.
SUBMISSIONS
Claimant’s submissions dated 24 April 2023
The submissions refer to the dashcam footage and assert that the traffic in lanes three and four (described as first and second lane from the right in the submissions) which “no doubt alerted” or ought to have alerted other drivers to the presence of a hazard.
It is submitted that the insured driver failed to consider the traffic conditions, slow down and safely stop his vehicle colliding with Mr Edwards’ vehicle.
Further, it is submitted that it is well established that a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty to keep a safe distance from a vehicle in front in order to be able to stop in the event of an emergency and/or hazard. As such, it is submitted that the insured driver is wholly at fault.
Insurer’s submissions dated 17 May 2023
It is asserted that the claimant is negligent for two main reasons. The first that she merged from lane three to lane two when it was not safe to do so. It is noted that the claimant told police this was due to her damaged side mirror, and in this regard the insurer refers to the conclusions of police that the claimant ought to have relied on her rear view mirror.
The second reason the insurer submits that the claimant is negligent is that once she had merged into lane two she stopped her vehicle and it was that action in particular that caused the collision.
The insurer submits that irrespective of the line of traffic to the left in lanes three and four, it was not foreseeable that the claimant would enter lane two and stop. It is submitted that it was the claimant’s obligation to not create an emergency hazard, rather than the insured driver safely stopping his vehicle.
Insurer’s submissions dated 24 November 2023
These submissions were lodged following receipt of the report of William Keramidas & Associates.
The insurer reiterates the previous submissions and notes the opinion of Ms Gaffney regarding braking of the insured is such that the insured could not be found to have been negligent noting that harsher braking would have resulted in a potentially even more dangerous situation. It is submitted that the insured did everything reasonably available to him to avoid the collision, including braking at the first opportunity available to him based on the visual cues available and braking at a level consistent with panic level braking.
It is submitted that the sole cause of the accident was the claimant’s actions.
EVIDENCE AT THE ASSESSMENT CONFERENCE
The claimant gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter. She gave evidence of the first collision. She recalled changing lanes thereafter from lane three to two, but stated that she did not remember anything after that.
The claimant also stated that before changing lanes she checked her rear view mirror. She recalled seeing a vehicle like a “Nissan van or something”.
Ms Allen for the insurer asked the claimant whether she checked over her shoulder before changing lanes. The answer to this query was somewhat confusing, however, ultimately the claimant appeared to confirm that she did look over her shoulder.
Overall, the evidence of the claimant did not assist me with making a determination in the matter. The claimant’s evidence was not straightforward and was difficult to follow, with sometimes vague answers.
ORAL SUBMISSIONS
In oral submissions, Mr Elhage on behalf of the claimant, agreed that there is no duty for a driver to anticipate everything that may occur on the roadway. Instead, it is a matter of foreseeability, and it was submitted that measures should have been taken before the claimant merged, given the circumstances.
It was also submitted that weight should not be placed on the fact the claimant was issued with an infringement notice. It was submitted that just because a road rule has been breached, does not equate to negligence. It was further asserted that the insured driver should not assume that every other driver is going to follow the road rules.
Mr Elhage disagreed with the insurer’s submission that it could not be reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would merge lanes and then come to a stop. It was submitted that driving requires reasonable attention to all that is happening on or near the roadway (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12 – 146 CLR 40).
Mr Elhage also submitted that traffic engineer failed to take in consideration the weight of the insured truck, which creates an issue as to accuracy.
Accordingly, given the traffic bank up in lanes three and four the insured driver should have commenced braking before he did. It was submitted that the insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and consider the conditions.
REASONS
I find that the proximate cause of the motor accident was the claimant merging into lane two from three and coming to a stop. On the evidence it is clear that the claimant did so without keeping a proper lookout. Particularly on a busy motorway with a speed limit of 110 kmph.
Whilst the claimant’s left hand side mirror had been damaged, this does not remove the requirement to ensure that it is safe to merge into a lane. It is incumbent upon a driver, such as the claimant, to take appropriate measures to ensure it is safe to merge. Such measures would include looking over her left shoulder and utilising the rear view mirror. Whilst the claimant now appears to assert that she took such measures, I find that on the balance of probabilities she did not do so, or at least failed to adequately do so. I find it more likely than not that had she taken those measures she would have perceived the insured vehicle and Mr Edwards vehicles approaching in lane two before she commenced her merging manoeuvre. In this regard, the insured’s vehicle is particularly large vehicle that should have served as a visual warning that it was not safe to merge.
I also agree with the insurer’s submission that in particular, it was the action of coming to a complete stop in lane two of a busy motorway that caused the accident. In the surrounding circumstances, I find that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would have taken such action in the circumstances. Whilst the merging may have been reasonably foreseeable, coming to a stop or otherwise travelling at a very low speed after merging was not reasonably foreseeable.
In respect of keeping a safe distance in front of him, the dashcam footage confirms that the insured driver was travelling in lane two with no vehicles in front of him for a considerable distance. His safe distance was effectively cut by the actions of Mr Edwards moving into lane two in front of the insured vehicle.
In terms of braking, contrary to the submissions of the claimant, I accept the analysis of
Ms Gaffney as to the insured driver commencing braking prior to the merging manoeuvre of the claimant. I also accept the evidence of Ms Gaffney that the braking was at an appropriate level in the circumstances, and make no finding that the insured driver ought to have braked harder, noting the risk of jack-knifing and rollover.
In terms of the question of whether the insured driver ought to have commenced braking sooner having regard to the buildup of traffic to the right, I have noted from the dashcam that the buildup in at least lane three was still forming at the time of or just prior to the insured commencing his braking. However, the insured driver acknowledged to police at the scene (as depicted in the bodyworn camera footage) that he had noticed the buildup of traffic and was not sure whether he backed off at that point. I find that on the balance of probabilities he did not “back off” at such juncture and it would have been reasonably prudent to do so.
Notwithstanding my finding above in respect of the insured’s actions/omissions, I maintain my finding that the proximate cause of the accident is the claimant’s failure to keep a proper lookout and merge into a lane in front of oncoming traffic, and more pertinently, then come to a stop or otherwise travel very slowly in front of an oncoming utility and semi trailer truck. This is particularly so, noting that the insured driver commenced braking prior to this merging manoeuvre occurring.
I find that such level of culpability on the part of the claimant, even in a situation where the insured ought to have perhaps commencing braking at an earlier juncture, is more than 61%, and would be more in the vicinity of 75%.
It follows, therefore, that I find the claimant to be mostly at fault.
COSTS
As a regulated miscellaneous claims assessment matter under Schedule 1, cls (3)(2)(d) and (e) of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (Regulation), legal costs may be awarded.
Schedule 1, cl(3)(1) of the Regulation provides that the maximum costs for legal services provided to a claimant involving a dispute about a regulated miscellaneous claims assessment matter is 16 monetary units.
The current value of a monetary unit is $119.96 which translates to a maximum amount of $1,919 per dispute.
I am not precluded from making an award of costs in favour of the claimant, even when I have found against her.
I note that expert report of the traffic engineer was served late in the proceedings. Such report provided more definitive information as to precise braking times. In such circumstances, I find that at least up until that point there was a reasonable basis upon which to pursue the current dispute within the commission.
Taking into account the circumstances, I make an award of costs in the amount of $1,500 plus GST in favour of the claimant.
CONCLUSION
For the purposes of s 3.11 the motor accident was not caused by the fault of another person.
For the purposes of s 3.28 the motor accident was caused mostly by the fault of the injured person.
Legal costs: costs are awarded in favour of the claimant in the total amount of $1,500 plus GST.
[BG1]Add closing "
[BG2]check
0
0
0