The question whether a person's wrongful act or omission was 'in respect of' a motor vehicle under s 5(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) should ordinarily not be determined summarily unless the relevant facts are agreed by all affected parties or are very clear, because seemingly small factual differences can produce opposite results. Where a primary judge's order is appropriate but the reasoning is wrong, leave to appeal may be granted to correct the reasoning where the erroneous reasoning could estop a party from pursuing the issue at trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.