Syed v CIC Allianz Insurance Ltd & Anor [2021] NSWDC 20

Syed v CIC Allianz Insurance Ltd & Anor [2021] NSWDC 20

The plaintiff failed to establish due inquiry and search for the unidentified vehicle, failed to prove timely or reasonable reporting to police, failed without reasonable excuse to co-operate with the insurer's requests for particulars and information, and failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for late claim notification and commencement outside the 3 year limitation period. Those statutory non-compliances required dismissal of the proceedings against the Nominal Defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Accident Personal Injury Proceedings / First Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Proceedings Against the Nominal Defendant for Non Compliance With Statutory Requirements
Outcome
The first defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's proceedings against the Nominal Defendant were dismissed; the plaintiff's case against Roads and Maritime Services remained on foot.
Legal Topics
['nominal Defendant' 'due Inquiry and Search' 'police Reporting Requirement' 'late Motor Accident Claim' 'duty to Co Operate With Insurer' 'leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time' 'dismissal for Statutory Non Compliance']
['practice and Procedure' 'motor Accidents Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['nominal Defendant' 'due Inquiry and Search' 'police Reporting Requirement' 'late Motor Accident Claim' 'duty to Co Operate With Insurer' 'leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time' 'dismissal for Statutory Non Compliance']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Motor Accident Personal Injury Proceedings / First Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Proceedings Against the Nominal Defendant for Non Compliance With Statutory Requirements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff made due inquiry and search to establish the identity of the alleged unidentified motor vehicle before proceeding against the Nominal Defendant.' 'Whether the accident was reported to police within the required period or within a reasonable period thereafter.' 'Whether the plaintiff failed to co-operate with reasonable insurer requests for particulars and information before commencing proceedings.' 'Whether the plaintiff provided a full and satisfactory explanation for late notification of the claim and commencing proceedings after the 3 year limitation period.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to re-open the application to call oral evidence about alleged psychological difficulties.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish due inquiry and search for the unidentified vehicle, failed to prove timely or reasonable reporting to police, failed without reasonable excuse to co-operate with the insurer's requests for particulars and information, and failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for late claim notification and commencement outside the 3 year limitation period. Those statutory non-compliances required dismissal of the proceedings against the Nominal Defendant.

Court Disposition

The first defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's proceedings against the Nominal Defendant were dismissed; the plaintiff's case against Roads and Maritime Services remained on foot.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to s 34(1AA), s 34A(5), s 70(1), s 70(7), s 72(1), s 73(7), s 85(4), s 109(1)(a) and s 109(3) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), the plaintiff's proceedings against the Nominal Defendant are dismissed due to non-compliance with those statutory provisions." "The plaintiff is to pay the...