Ford v Nominal Defendant

[2023] QCA 83

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Insurance
2. › Motor vehicles
3. › Compulsory third party insurance
4. › Unidentified vehicle
5. › Proper inquiry and search
6. › Whether claimant required to pursue vehicle immediately after incident
7. › Whether claimant required to return to scene on subsequent occasion
8. › Whether suggested searches unlikely to be productive
9. › Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 31(2)
1. Insurance
2. › Motor vehicles
3. › Compulsory third party insurance
4. › Unidentified vehicle
5. › Proper inquiry and search
6. › Distinction between pain and injury
7. › Whether knowledge of injury required
8. › Relevance of claimant's physical and mental state
1. Appeal
2. › General civil appeal
3. › Finding of fact
4. › Whether primary judge erred in equating experience of pain with knowledge of injury

Quick Take

A claimant who experiences pain but does not believe they are injured at the time of an incident involving an unidentified vehicle is not required by 'proper inquiry and search' under s 31(2) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) to pursue the vehicle immediately. The distinction between experiencing pain and knowing one is injured is real and commonplace. Suggested searches that are unlikely to be productive — such as returning to the scene on a subsequent evening or searching local streets based on speculative assumptions about the driver's residence — are not required. The assessment must be made from the claimant's perspective at the relevant time, avoiding hindsight bias.