Nominal Defendant v Dighton

This case concerned an appeal from a decision of a trial judge in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The respondent, Mr Dighton, was involved in a motor vehicle collision with an unidentified driver. The trial judge found the unidentified driver to be solely responsible for the collision and held that Mr Dighton was entitled to bring an action against the Nominal Defendant under the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA). A key issue at trial was whether Mr Dighton had made all due inquiry and search to identify the other vehicle.

The appeal raised two primary legal issues. Firstly, it was contended that the trial judge erred in his assessment of damages, particularly concerning the methodology employed and whether his findings were supported by the evidence. Secondly, the appeal challenged the trial judge's finding that Mr Dighton had made due inquiry and search to ascertain the identity of the offending vehicle, as required by the relevant legislation.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Sulan, Anderson and David JJ, considered the evidence presented at trial. Regarding the due inquiry and search, the Court noted that the trial judge had rejected Mr Dighton's evidence concerning certain information he claimed to have received, which he believed could have led to the identification of the vehicle. The Court agreed with the trial judge's assessment that Mr Dighton had not provided this information to his solicitors, and that had he done so, they would have pursued it. The Court found that the trial judge's conclusion that no further inquiry would have led to the identification of the vehicle was a crucial finding, supported by the evidence and the rejection of Mr Dighton's version of events.

The Court allowed the appeal on the issue of damages, finding that the trial judge's assessment contained errors. However, the Court upheld the trial judge's finding that Mr Dighton had not made due inquiry and search to identify the offending vehicle. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment of the trial judge and remitted the matter for a new trial on the assessment of damages only.