Publications

Section 2.30(2) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA) provides that a claim against the Nominal Defendant cannot succeed unless the claimant has conducted due inquiry and search to ascertain the identity of the unidentified vehicle. This provision reflects the balance between ensuring genuine claimants are compensated and discouraging reliance on the Nominal Defendant without first making real efforts to identify the vehicle at fault.

The recent decision of the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) in Palmer v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 440 illustrates how the obligation is applied in practice. The decision highlights that what amounts to due inquiry and search is inherently fact-sensitive, requiring claimants to act promptly and thoroughly in their efforts, but also recognising the realities of the circumstances they face.

Background

On 27 November 2024, Ms Palmer was driving to work when her vehicle, stationary in traffic, was struck from behind. The impact pushed her into the vehicle ahead. All three drivers left their vehicles to assess the damage and exchange details. However, the incident occurred during the morning peak on a busy single-lane road. To avoid blocking traffic, Ms Palmer suggested that the drivers move into a nearby TAFE car park, about 30 metres away, to complete the exchange of details.

Ms Palmer and the innocent driver complied, but the at-fault driver drove off and failed to return. Ms Palmer then exchanged details with the innocent driver and proceeded directly to Burwood Police Station, where she reported the accident. She also undertook further inquiries in the following weeks, including liaising with police about CCTV footage, inspecting the area for cameras, and posting about the accident on a local Facebook group to appeal for witnesses. The identity of the at-fault driver was never discovered.

When Ms Palmer lodged a claim against the Nominal Defendant, the insurer denied liability. The insurer argued she had failed to satisfy the statutory obligation of due inquiry and search, alleging she had an opportunity at the scene to record the vehicle’s registration but did not do so.

The decision

The PIC Member found in favour of Ms Palmer and concluded that she had discharged her obligation to conduct due inquiry and search.  The Member began with the principle established in Nominal Defendant v Meakes [2012] NSWCA 66, namely that what constitutes due inquiry and search depends upon the circumstances and requires conduct that is both prompt and thorough. The Member accepted that Ms Palmer’s actions were consistent with this standard.

The insurer placed significant reliance on Nominal Defendant v Meakes, arguing that it illustrated the consequences of failing to take obvious steps to identify a vehicle. In that case, the claimant, a solicitor, was struck while crossing a city intersection. He spoke with the driver and had the ability to record the registration but chose not to, as he was hurrying to a meeting. The Court of Appeal held that this omission fell short of due inquiry and search because he ignored an obvious and simple step.

Ms Palmer’s case was materially different. Moving the discussion into a nearby car park was a reasonable step to reduce traffic risks, and she had no reason to expect the driver would depart without giving details. Unlike in Meakes, she did not disregard an available opportunity to take the registration. When the driver unexpectedly left, she acted promptly reporting to police, making enquiries of others, and pursuing further avenues of information.

Her decision to move location was not a failure of diligence but a sensible response to the circumstances. She could not have anticipated the driver’s non-compliance. There was also evidence that the vehicle’s front number plate had come off in the collision and was taken by the driver before leaving, suggesting that Ms Palmer may not have had a practical opportunity to record or photograph it.

Critically, she reported the incident to police within hours and maintained contact with them, including inquiries about CCTV. She also revisited the area and appealed through social media. These steps reflected persistence and a genuine attempt to meet the statutory obligation. The Commission was satisfied that, taken together, her actions amounted to due inquiry and search.

Key takeaways

Palmer v Allianz provides valuable guidance on the requirement. It confirms that reasonableness must be assessed in context, taking into account the claimant’s safety, the traffic environment, and what could reasonably have been foreseen at the time. It reinforces that promptness, such as immediate reporting to police, is a strong indicator of compliance. It also shows that thoroughness extends beyond making a police report: follow-up steps such as canvassing the area, checking for surveillance, and appealing for witnesses may all be relevant. Ultimately, each case turns on its own facts, and courts will assess the practicality of steps open to the claimant at the time. For practitioners, the case underlines the importance of advising clients to keep a careful record of every step taken to identify an unidentified vehicle. Police reports, correspondence, notes of enquiries made, and social media appeals may all become crucial evidence demonstrating compliance.

This article was published on 27 October by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website. If you or a loved one has been injured, use our Personal Injury Claim Check now.