Van Der Wolf v TAC - [2025] VSCA 24

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2024 0072

RONALD VAN DER WOLF	Applicant
v
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH JA, FORBES AND J FORREST AJJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 March 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 24
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VSC 296 (Richards J)

---

TRANSPORT ACCIDENT – Application for leave to appeal decision of trial judge on appeal of orders of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Applicant alleged to have suffered injury from sounding of alcohol interlock device alarm fitted to his vehicle – Tribunal found incident not directly caused by the driving of a motor vehicle and not a ‘transport accident’ within the meaning of s 3 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 – Whether judge erred in concluding that it was open to the Tribunal to find that the incident was not directly caused by the applicant’s driving of his motor vehicle – No error of law in Tribunal’s decision – Leave to appeal refused.

Transport Accident Act 1986, ss 3, 35(1).
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, s 148.

Insurance Commission (WA) v Container Handlers Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 89; Foursquare Construction Management Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (2022) 68 VR 415; Maitland Smith v Path Transit Pty Ltd (2009) 52 MVR 185, considered.

Marsh v Transport Accident Commission (2020) 92 MVR 201; Zengin v Insurance Commission of Western Australia [2020] VSC 237, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr SR McCredie
Respondent:		Mr R Kumar with Ms E Golshtein
Solicitors
Applicant:	Henry Carus & Associates
Respondent:	Transport Accident Commission

BEACH JA
FORBES AJA
J FORREST AJA:

This is, by any standard, a most unusual case. Mr Van Der Wolf, the applicant for leave to appeal, alleges that he sustained sensory neural hearing loss when an alarm (at times called a siren), attached to a breath alcohol interlock device (‘the interlock’) in his Volkswagen van, for a short time gave off a loud and constant noise. This happened whilst his vehicle was stationary with the engine running as Mr Van Der Wolf, who was in the driver’s seat, endeavoured to operate the interlock.
Mr Van Der Wolf asserts that his injury (i.e. the hearing loss and an associated psychological reaction) was the result of a transport accident and therefore he is entitled to compensation under the Transport Accident Act 1986 (‘the Act’).
The question that the Transport Accident Commission (‘TAC’) and then, on review, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) had to answer was whether the sounding of the alarm (which resulted in the injury) was an incident directly caused by the driving of a motor vehicle.
TAC said it was not. The Tribunal (constituted by Senior Member Wentworth) also answered the question in the negative.[1]
[1]Van Der Wolf v Transport Accident Commission (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 51 (‘VCAT Reasons’).
On appeal in the Trial Division of this Court,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Van Der Wolf v TAC and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSCA 24
Decision Date: 6 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Van Der Wolf v TAC was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Mr Van Der Wolf, sought a review of a decision made by the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) denying his claim for compensation under the Transport Accident Act 1986. The dispute centred on whether the TAC correctly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Act in dismissing Mr Van Der Wolf's claim for permanent impairment benefits.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of sections 3 and 35(1) of the Transport Accident Act 1986, and whether the TAC's decision was lawful, rational, and based on a proper consideration of relevant evidence. The court also had to consider whether the tribunal's decision was in accordance with relevant case law, including Insurance Commission (WA) v Container Handlers Pty Ltd, Foursquare Construction Management Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority, and Maitland Smith v Path Transit Pty Ltd. Furthermore, the court was required to assess the applicability of previous case law, such as Marsh v Transport Accident Commission and Zengin v Insurance Commission of Western Australia.

The court found that the TAC had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions in dismissing Mr Van Der Wolf's claim. The tribunal had thoroughly reviewed the evidence and made findings based on a proper application of the law. The court held that the TAC's decision was lawful, rational, and supported by the evidence. The appellant's arguments regarding the interpretation of the Act and the applicability of previous case law were not persuasive enough to warrant a different outcome. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the TAC's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the TAC's decision be upheld. Costs were awarded to the respondent, the TAC.

Orders