Sally Ann John v Robert Ramsey [2015] NSWDC 190

Sally Ann John v Robert Ramsey [2015] NSWDC 190

Zurich did not demonstrate that the plaintiff had no reasonable prospects or that allowing the action to proceed would be an abuse of process. The pleaded accident was not said to fall outside s 7B, and the operation of s 7E depended on factual circumstances of the accident, including features of the plaintiff's driving, which should be determined at trial before construing and applying the blameless accident provisions. Relief under UCPR 13.4 or 14.28 was therefore inappropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accident Proceedings / Amended Notice of Motion by the 3rd Defendant Seeking Dismissal of the Proceedings Against It or Strike Out Under UCPR 13.4(1)(c) or 14.28
Outcome
The 3rd Defendant's Notice of Motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Accident' 'blameless Accident' 'deemed Liability' 'third Party Insurer' 'reasonable Prospects' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'statutory Interpretation' 'driver Exclusion Under S 7 E']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'motor Accidents Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['motor Vehicle Accident' 'blameless Accident' 'deemed Liability' 'third Party Insurer' 'reasonable Prospects' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'statutory Interpretation' 'driver Exclusion Under S 7 E']

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 Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accident Proceedings / Amended Notice of Motion by the 3rd Defendant Seeking Dismissal of the Proceedings Against It or Strike Out Under UCPR 13.4(1)(c) or 14.28

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff driver had no reasonable prospects of maintaining a claim against Zurich under the blameless accident provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether s 7E of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) excluded any entitlement to recover damages because the accident was caused by an act or omission of the plaintiff driver.' 'Whether proceedings against the 3rd Defendant insurer should be dismissed or struck out under UCPR 13.4 or 14.28 as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as an abuse of process.']

Ratio Decidendi

Zurich did not demonstrate that the plaintiff had no reasonable prospects or that allowing the action to proceed would be an abuse of process. The pleaded accident was not said to fall outside s 7B, and the operation of s 7E depended on factual circumstances of the accident, including features of the plaintiff's driving, which should be determined at trial before construing and applying the blameless accident provisions. Relief under UCPR 13.4 or 14.28 was therefore inappropriate.

Court Disposition

The 3rd Defendant's Notice of Motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion of the 3rd Defendant is dismissed.']