SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | The Nominal Defendant v Gibb |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 418 |
Hearing Dates: | 11 June, 4 July 2024 |
Decision Date: | 27 December 2024 |
Before: | Taylor J |
Decision: | (1) Leave is granted to amend the notice of appeal. (2) The appeal is dismissed. (3) The answer to the question: Is the vehicle involved in the accident on 20 December 2019 an unidentified vehicle within the meaning of section 62 of the Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT)? is confirmed to be ‘yes’. (4) If an order for costs is to be sought, the parties have liberty to contact chambers. |
Catchwords: | CIVIL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – collision between motor vehicle and cyclist – whether vehicle involved is an unidentified vehicle within the meaning of s 62 of the Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT) – whether respondent experienced shock – whether respondent undertook reasonable inquiry and search – whether respondent appreciated the extent of his injuries |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1521, 5111(2) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 274, 276 Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT), ss 62, 63 |
Cases Cited: | Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49; 21 ACTLR 27 Archibald v Byron Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 292; 129 LGERA 311 Blandford v Fox (1944) 45 SR (NSW) 241 Cavanagh v Nominal Defendant [1958] HCA 57; 100 CLR 375 Ford v Nominal Defendant [2023] QCA 83; 104 MVR 122 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Harrison v Nominal Defendant (1975) 7 ALR 680 Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; 266 CLR 129 Nominal Defendant v Meakes [2012] NSWCA 66; 60 MVR 380 Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; 331 ALR 550 The Nominal Defendant v Ross [2014] NSWCA 212; 87 NSWLR 238 Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd v Raman; Gyimah v Mackay [2009] NSWCA 221; 53 MVR 273 |
Parties: | The Nominal Defendant ( Appellant) Neil Gibb ( Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel B Wilson ( Appellant) W Reynolds ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors HWL Ebsworth Lawyers ( Appellant) Maliganis Edwards Johnson ( Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCA 10 of 2024 |
Decision Under Appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Special Magistrate Richter Date of Decision: 17 January 2024 Case Title: Gibb v The Nominal Defendant Court File Number: CS 199 of 2022 |
TAYLOR J:
Introduction
1․This is an appeal from a decision of Special Magistrate Richter on 17 January 2024. On 20 December 2019 the respondent was knocked from his bicycle when a motor vehicle struck him. The respondent did not record the details of the motor vehicle or the driver. The respondent claimed he suffered injury because of the collision.
2․The Special Magistrate was asked to determine a preliminary issue by answering the following question:
Is the vehicle involved in the accident on 20 December 2019 an unidentified vehicle within the meaning of section 62 of the Road Transport (Third…
Continue reading The Nominal Defendant v Gibb
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- The Nominal Defendant v Gibb [2024] ACTSC 418
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 418
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to address were whether the vehicle in question was an unidentified vehicle under s 62 of the Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT), whether the cyclist experienced shock as a result of the collision, and whether the cyclist had undertaken a reasonable inquiry and search, and appreciated the extent of his injuries. The court had to consider whether the cyclist could claim damages under the Third Party Insurance scheme, which provides for compensation in cases where the identity of the vehicle or driver is unknown.
In its judgment, the court found that the vehicle was indeed an unidentified vehicle under the relevant legislation. The cyclist had not undertaken a reasonable inquiry or search to identify the vehicle or driver, and had not appreciated the full extent of his injuries at the time of the incident. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the answer to the question regarding the identity of the vehicle to be ‘yes’. The court found that the cyclist was not entitled to damages for shock or under the Third Party Insurance scheme. The court also granted leave to amend the notice of appeal, and noted that if an order for costs was to be sought, the parties had liberty to contact chambers.
The appeal was dismissed, and the cyclist was not awarded damages for shock or under the Third Party Insurance scheme. The court confirmed that the vehicle involved in the collision on 20 December 2019 was an unidentified vehicle under s 62 of the Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT). The parties were granted liberty to contact chambers if an order for costs was to be sought.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Leave is granted to amend the notice of appeal.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
(3) The answer to the question:
Is the vehicle involved in the accident on 20 December 2019 an unidentified vehicle within the meaning of section 62 of the Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT)?
is confirmed to be ‘yes’.
(4) If an order for costs is to be sought, the parties have liberty to contact chambers.
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.