Nominal Defendant v Habib

The appeal concerned a claim for damages for personal injuries brought by the respondent, Mr. Habib, against the appellant, the Nominal Defendant. Mr. Habib was injured when the motor vehicle he was driving collided with a motor vehicle owned by a Mr. and Mrs. Kouris, which was uninsured. The Kouris vehicle had been driven by a Mr. Giumelli, who was not the owner and had no permission to drive it. The Nominal Defendant was joined as a defendant pursuant to the relevant legislation, which provided a scheme for compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents where the vehicle involved was uninsured or unidentifiable. The primary dispute revolved around whether the Kouris vehicle was being driven with the consent of the owners, a requirement for the Nominal Defendant to be liable under the scheme. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Kouris vehicle was being driven by Mr. Giumelli with the consent, express or implied, of the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Kouris. This question was critical because the statutory scheme under which the Nominal Defendant was liable required the uninsured vehicle to be driven without the consent of the owner, or by a person unknown to the owner, for the Nominal Defendant to be brought into the proceedings. If the vehicle was driven with the owners' consent, the Nominal Defendant would not be liable.

The High Court considered the principles of implied consent in the context of motor vehicle use. It was held that for implied consent to exist, there must be some evidence from which it could be inferred that the owner had given permission for the driver to use the vehicle, even if not in a specific way. In this instance, the evidence did not establish that Mr. and Mrs. Kouris had given Mr. Giumelli permission to drive their vehicle. Their evidence was that they had not given him permission, and there was no material from which an inference of implied consent could be drawn. Consequently, the Kouris vehicle was being driven without the owners' consent.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court. The Nominal Defendant was therefore liable to compensate Mr. Habib for his injuries.