In an unusual case decided in November this year by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, an owner of an unregistered motorcycle was ordered to pay over $1M to the Nominal Defendant (the State of Queensland).
The Nominal Defendant stands in the place of a CTP Insurer (compulsory third party insurance taken out with the registration of a vehicle) to compensate injured persons arising from the driving of an unregistered motor vehicle. The Nominal Defendant in 2006 paid $769,000.00 to the widow and children of a man presumed dead after a motorcycle accident on Mission River Bridge outside Weipa in 2002.
The deceased was apparently thrown off the motorcycle and off the bridge into shark and crocodile infested waters and never seen again after the motor cycle hit a speed bump. The only other person present who possibly could explain the circumstances of the accident was the owner of the motorcycle.
However, he was seriously injured and had no recollection. The police and coroner who both investigated were unable to identify which of the two men was the rider at the time of the accident.
The Nominal Defendant defended the proceedings by the widow and children who claimed the deceased was a passenger, however, settled the claim prior to trial for the amount mentioned above.
There was some evidence of the two mens’ activities on the day of the accident which on balance led the Nominal Defendant to believe the deceased would be found by the Court to be the passenger. Thus the decision to settle the case.
There was no dispute that the Nominal Defendant has the right under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 to recover its costs of settling an injury claim from the owner and/or rider (the same person in this case) of the unregistered motorcycle being ridden on a road.
The only argument the owner raised to try and avoid having to pay the Nominal Defendant what it had paid to the deceased’s family was that the Nominal Defendant should never have settled the case because the Court may never have found that the deceased was the passenger. If the Court had have found that the deceased was the rider, then the deceased’s dependants’ injury claims would have failed.
Chief Justice considered the Nominal Defendant’s reasons for deciding to settle the case and found them to be reasonable. Therefore, the Chief Justice made the owner/rider repay the Nominal Defendant.
If you know somebody has driven/ridden an unregistered vehicle on the road, you may care to tell them about this case as a ‘wake-up call’.
Obvious examples of this happening in our region are farm kids taking their motorbikes onto the road or farm vehicles, such as tractors, going onto the road without the right registration.
