Nominal Defendant v Hawkins

The appeal concerned a claim brought by the plaintiff, Mr Hawkins, against the Nominal Defendant following injuries sustained by Mr Hawkins. Mr Hawkins, a cyclist, alleged that he was harassed by the driver of a motor vehicle, and subsequently lost control of his bicycle and was injured when an object was thrown from the vehicle. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Hawkins' injuries constituted a "motor accident" and whether he suffered an "injury" as defined by the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW).

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the events described by Mr Hawkins fell within the statutory definition of a "motor accident" and "injury" under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999*. Secondly, the court considered whether the primary judge erred in principle, or exercised their discretion unreasonably, by not ordering costs on an indemnity basis in favour of Mr Hawkins, despite him obtaining a judgment no less favourable than an offer of compromise he had made.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's decision. It was held that the circumstances did indeed constitute a "motor accident" and that Mr Hawkins had suffered an "injury" within the meaning of the Act. The court found that the actions of the driver of the motor vehicle were causative of Mr Hawkins' loss of control and subsequent injuries. Regarding the costs issue, the court found no error in the primary judge's discretionary decision not to award indemnity costs, concluding that the judge had acted within the bounds of reasonable discretionary judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs. An application for leave to cross-appeal was also dismissed with costs, limited to costs incremental to the costs of the appeal.