Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) Dispute: Was “due inquiry and search” established for a statutory benefits claim against the Nominal Defendant involving an unidentified vehicle?

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Ziegeler v Nominal Defendant [2025] NSWPIC 61, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

• Court of Hearing: Personal Injury Commission
• Presiding Member: Bianca Montgomery-Hribar
• Cause of Action: Claim for statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) against the Nominal Defendant.
• Judgment Date: 20 February 2025
• Core Keywords:
  • Authentic Judgment Case
  • Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017
  • Nominal Defendant
  • Unidentified Vehicle
  • Due Inquiry and Search
  • Statutory Benefits

Background:

The Claimant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident on 10 November 2023. The accident occurred when the Claimant, riding a motorbike, took evasive action to avoid colliding with an alleged at-fault unidentified vehicle described as a black Mustang with gold decal. This evasive action led to the Claimant losing control of his motorbike, hitting a median strip, and colliding with a stationary Mercedes-Benz car. The unidentified vehicle did not stop at the scene, and its driver remains unknown. Consequently, the Claimant lodged a claim for statutory benefits against the Nominal Defendant.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central legal dispute is whether the Claimant fulfilled the requirement for “due inquiry and search” to establish the identity of the alleged at-fault unidentified vehicle, as mandated by section 2.30(2) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). The Claimant seeks statutory benefits, arguing that all reasonable inquiries were made but the vehicle’s identity could not be established. The Nominal Defendant, represented by the Insurer, denied the claim, contending that the Claimant failed to conduct adequate and prompt due inquiry and search, thus allowing the trail of evidence to grow cold.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The events leading to this litigation commenced on 10 November 2023, when the Claimant, Luke Ziegeler, was involved in a severe motor vehicle accident. Approximately 11:25 am, the Claimant was riding his motorbike travelling south on Bernera Road, Prestons, towards the Liverpool Catholic Club and the M7 motorway. His account details observing an unidentified black Mustang with gold decal driving erratically, having reportedly come off the M7 motorway and accelerated quickly through a roundabout.

The Claimant, perceiving the unidentified vehicle as behaving unusually, continued riding towards a second roundabout at the intersection of Jedda Road and Joadja Road. In his rearview mirror, he saw the Mustang quickly cut in behind him, driving in close proximity. To avoid collision, the Claimant merged into the left lane; however, the unidentified vehicle quickly followed and accelerated towards the rear of his motorbike.

During this encounter, the Claimant stated he took evasive action to “escape” the unidentified vehicle. Unfortunately, he was navigating a bend in the road near the intersection of Joadja Road and Jedda Road, an area he noted had gravel on the surface. As a result, he was unable to maintain control of his motorbike, hit the median strip, and was launched from his motorbike onto the windscreen of a black Mercedes-Benz sedan that was stopped at the traffic lights on Joadja Road. His body then fell onto the road. The unidentified vehicle did not stop at the scene, and its identity, along with that of its driver, remains unknown.

Police and paramedics attended the scene. The Claimant, suffering multiple serious injuries including a collapsed lung, broken collarbone, and several fractures, as well as alleged psychological injuries, was conveyed to Liverpool Hospital via ambulance. He was discharged on 14 November 2023.

On 6 December 2023, following his discharge from hospital, the Claimant submitted an application for personal injury benefits to the Nominal Defendant via CTP Assist. This claim was initially misallocated to QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (QBE) as the insurer of the Claimant’s motorbike, before being correctly referred to Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (Allianz) on behalf of the Nominal Defendant on 14 March 2024. The Insurer subsequently denied the claim on the basis that due inquiry and search to identify the at-fault vehicle had not been conducted. This denial ultimately led to the matter being referred to the Personal Injury Commission for determination.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Claimant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Police Interaction: The Claimant promptly reported the accident to the police, provided a formal statement on 11 November 2023, and obtained the police report. Police had concluded there was no CCTV at the accident site.
• Witness Liaison: The Claimant spoke to the occupants of the stationary Mercedes-Benz sedan on 18 November 2023, who confirmed they did not see the unidentified vehicle or anything else relevant to its identification.
• Solicitors’ Investigations (commencing July 2024):
  • Conferences with the Claimant to ascertain further investigatory avenues.
  • Contacted the local newspaper (Liverpool Leader), which was no longer in print.
  • Contacted the Sydney Morning Herald, which advised online-only publication not distributed in the Liverpool area.
  • Visited accident site on two occasions (August 2024) to assess suitability for letterbox drops; deemed unsuitable as it was an industrial area.
  • Contacted Liverpool Catholic Club (LCC) to post an advertisement; refused as it was for club matters and the location was too far from the accident.
  • Posted several notices at the accident site; no witnesses came forward.
  • Lodged a GIPA Act application with police on 2 August 2024 for all records (received 11 September 2024).
  • Submitted an internal review application to the Insurer.
• Compliance & Timeliness Argument: All due inquiry and search, reasonable in the circumstances, was undertaken to the “fullest extent capable.” The requirements do not mandate fruitful inquiry, only reasonable endeavours. Any perceived delay was influenced by the Claimant’s incapacitation, the misallocation of the claim, the remote/industrial accident location, and the Insurer’s delay in specifying further required investigations.
• Legal Precedent: References to McLennan v Nominal Defendant, Nominal Defendant v Ross, and Oztan v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation to support the argument that futile or ritualistic searches are not required, and that the likelihood of witnesses was minimal.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Claimant’s Inaction and Delay: The Insurer alleges “two critical periods of avoidable delay”:
  • Late November 2023 to January 2024: Claimant conducted no searches despite being capable.
  • January 2024 to July 2024: Claimant made only one inquiry and abandoned further search until solicitors acted.
• Inadequacy of Searches:
  • Speaking to police and Mercedes-Benz occupants insufficient.
  • No prompt contact with businesses (Storage King Prestons, Scott’s Refrigerated Freightways, Endeavor Energy, LCC) for CCTV footage or witnesses.
  • No inquiry for M7 motorway CCTV footage, despite the distinctive vehicle.
  • Failure to follow up on Sydney Morning Herald advertisement process.
  • Late GIPA application (August 2024).
• Prejudice Argument: The Claimant’s delay allowed the “trail to go cold,” prejudicing the Nominal Defendant fund. Proper searches could have identified a CTP-insured vehicle.
• Legal Precedent: Reference to Zengin v Insurance Commission of Western Australia regarding prejudice suffered by the insurer due to claimant delay.
• Credibility Challenge: The Insurer noted inconsistencies in the Claimant’s statement (e.g., claiming no notification of obligations despite evidence of emails).

Core Dispute Points:

1. Did the Claimant, or those acting on his behalf, conduct “due inquiry and search” as required by s 2.30(2) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)? This involves assessing both the promptness and thoroughness of the inquiries.
2. Did the circumstances of the accident, the Claimant’s condition, and the nature of the accident location render certain inquiries futile or ritualistic, thus excusing their absence or delay?
3. Ultimately, despite the inquiries made, can the identity of the alleged at-fault vehicle still not be established?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In this case, the Claimant’s “statement” (akin to an affidavit or statutory declaration in other jurisdictions) serves as a core document detailing his account of the accident and subsequent actions. The Insurer challenged aspects of this statement, particularly paragraph 46, where the Claimant asserted he “was never at any stage in my claim informed received information from the insurer directly of my due search and inquiry obligations.” The Insurer presented email correspondence sent to both the Claimant and his solicitors, indicating earlier notification of these obligations.

The strategic intent behind the procedural directions regarding such statements in cases against the Nominal Defendant is paramount. These cases often hinge on whether all reasonable steps were taken to identify the at-fault vehicle. Detailed and accurate affidavits allow the Commission to evaluate the Claimant’s efforts without needing extensive oral testimony. By requiring specific factual accounts and allowing for their challenge and clarification, the Commission aims to create a clear “composite picture” of the Claimant’s actions. The discrepancy regarding the timing and reception of the “due inquiry and search” notification highlights the importance of precise record-keeping and communication in litigation, as different recollections of the same event can significantly impact a party’s narrative and credibility. The Judge’s focus on objectively verifiable evidence and consistent accounts helps to distinguish genuine recollection from potential inaccuracies.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final determination, the Commission issued several procedural directions:
* A preliminary conference was held on 21 November 2024.
* Directions were issued for both parties to provide further evidence and submissions.
* Both parties complied, providing additional evidence and written submissions.
* A further conference was held on 3 February 2025, where oral submissions in reply and brief oral submissions regarding credibility were made.
* The parties agreed to the dispute being determined on the basis of the documents and submissions before the Member, without requiring a formal hearing. The Member confirmed satisfaction that sufficient information had been provided to allow for a determination “on the papers.”

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The ultimate showdown of evidence and logic in this case transpired not through a dramatic oral hearing, but through a rigorous “on the papers” assessment. The Member meticulously weighed the Claimant’s narrative and documented efforts against the Insurer’s arguments of delay and inaction, guided by established legal principles.

The core of the confrontation revolved around the Claimant’s and his solicitors’ efforts to identify the at-fault vehicle, juxtaposed against the Insurer’s assertions that these efforts were neither prompt nor sufficient. The Claimant presented a consistent account of the accident, emphasizing his immediate incapacitation, subsequent medical treatment, and his reliance on police and his legal representatives for further inquiry. He highlighted the challenges posed by the accident location—an industrial area with minimal prospect of witnesses and no nearby CCTV.

The Insurer, conversely, meticulously catalogued perceived delays: from the period immediately following the Claimant’s hospital discharge until solicitors actively engaged in July 2024, and specific delays in contacting local businesses or applying for CCTV footage. The Insurer contended that such delays allowed the “trail to go cold,” thereby prejudicing the Nominal Defendant fund.

The Member’s judicial reasoning critically examined the meaning of “due inquiry and search” within the specific circumstances of the case, drawing upon seminal authorities. The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) requires such inquiry and search as is reasonable, considering both the accident’s circumstances and the Claimant’s situation post-accident.

The Member directly addressed the essence of the “due inquiry and search” test, noting its compound nature and drawing from established precedent. In Harrison v Nominal Defendant (1975) 7 ALR 680 at 682, Barwick CJ explained:

“It is not whether some search and inquiry has been made. The presence of the word ‘due’ in the subsection emphasizes that the question is whether the identity of the vehicle cannot be established though such search and inquiry as might appropriately be made in the circumstances of the case had taken place. ‘… It is a mistake, in my opinion, to divorce the words ‘after due inquiry and search’ from the total expression of the condition on which the action against the Nominal Defendant may be brought. Whether or not the tribunal of fact is satisfied that the identity of the vehicle cannot be established after such search and inquiry of which the circumstances admit will depend on all the circumstances of the case.”

This statement was determinative in framing the Member’s analysis, focusing on the reasonableness of the Claimant’s efforts rather than a mere checklist of activities. The Member also considered the “futility” principle, drawn from Oztan v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 23 MVR 259, which posits that claimants are not required to embark on “a charade or the pursuit of routine advertisements and inquiries that were not, realistically, likely to produce results.”

Applying these principles, the Member found that the Claimant’s initial incapacitation and the minimal time between the accident and his hospital transport excused immediate on-scene inquiries. Despite the Insurer’s allegations of delay, the Member found that the later investigations conducted by the Claimant’s solicitors, although delayed, addressed avenues that likely would have proven futile even if undertaken sooner. The industrial nature of the accident site, the absence of directly relevant CCTV, and the lack of identifying details from the Mercedes-Benz occupants all contributed to a “cold trail” that reasonable inquiries could not revive. The Member thus concluded that the Claimant’s actions, within his specific circumstances, constituted due inquiry and search.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Personal Injury Commission, through Member Bianca Montgomery-Hribar, issued the following determinations:

1. For the purposes of s 2.30(2) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), due inquiry and search has been made to establish the identity of the motor vehicle concerned.
2. For the purposes of s 2.30(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), the identity of the vehicle cannot be established.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case provides a significant jurisprudential contribution to the interpretation of “due inquiry and search” under section 2.30 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). The Member’s emphasis on the “circumstances of the case” and the Claimant’s “situation” as the primary test for reasonableness, rather than a rigid timeline or a prescribed list of actions, reinforces a flexible, context-dependent approach. The judgment highlights that the onus is not merely on undertaking any inquiry, but rather inquiries that hold a “realistic prospect of providing information.” This steers away from a checklist mentality, acknowledging that trauma, incapacity, and the inherent difficulties of locating an unidentified vehicle in certain environments can legitimately limit investigatory options. The distinction drawn between a “ritualistic” search and a “fruitful avenue of inquiry” is crucial, setting a practical standard for claimants and their legal representatives.

Judgment Points:

• Prompt and Appropriate Notification: The Insurer did comply with its obligations under the Motor Accident Guidelines (clauses 4.136-4.141) by promptly advising the Claimant of the due inquiry and search requirements, even if the Claimant’s personal recollection differed due to his traumatic experience. This highlights the importance of documented communication in meeting procedural obligations.
• Impact of Initial Incapacitation: The Member firmly accepted that the Claimant’s severe injuries and immediate transport to hospital rendered him incapable of undertaking inquiries on the day of the accident. This period of genuine incapacitation excused immediate investigatory action.
• Futility of Certain Inquiries: The accident occurred in an industrial area, not a “built-up area” with high foot traffic or readily available CCTV. The Member found that inquiries such as posting newspaper advertisements or canvassing local businesses for witnesses or CCTV would have likely been futile, even if conducted sooner, aligning with the principle against “ritualistic” searches.
• M7 CCTV Irrelevance: Inquiries regarding M7 motorway CCTV footage were deemed largely irrelevant. Even if sought sooner, the footage’s limited retention period (1-2 weeks) and its tangential relation to the accident scene meant it was unlikely to establish the vehicle’s identity.
• Reliance on Legal Representatives: The Member affirmed that it was appropriate for the Claimant to rely on his legal representatives for further investigations, and that such efforts conducted on his behalf form part of his “due inquiry and search” obligations.

Legal Basis:

• Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW):
  • Section 1.4: Defines “claim” to include claims for statutory benefits.
  • Section 1.10A: Extends the Nominal Defendant’s liability provisions to statutory benefits claims.
  • Section 2.30: Mandates “due inquiry and search” to establish the identity of an unidentified vehicle for claims against the Nominal Defendant.
• Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW):
  • Section 52(3): Allows for determination “on the papers” if sufficient information is supplied.
• Motor Accident Guidelines (Clauses 4.136-4.141): Outline the Insurer’s obligations to inform claimants of due inquiry and search requirements and provide details of deficiencies.
• Common Law Principles:
  • Harrison v Nominal Defendant (1975) 7 ALR 680: Defines “due inquiry and search” as reasonable in the circumstances of the case and the claimant.
  • Cavanagh v Nominal Defendant (1958) 100 CLR 375: Emphasizes that “due” connects inquiry to the claimant’s circumstances.
  • Oztan v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 23 MVR 259: Excuses “ritualistic” or futile searches.
  • Nominal Defendant v Ross (2014) 87 NSWLR 238: Reiterates context-specific reasonableness and avoids hindsight.

Evidence Chain:

The Member relied on:
* The Claimant’s formal statement to police (11 November 2023).
* The Ambulance Report (10 November 2023) and Police Report.
* The Claimant’s detailed statement to his solicitors (19 December 2024).
* Correspondence between the Insurer and the Claimant’s solicitors (March-July 2024), demonstrating notification of obligations.
* Records of solicitors’ investigations (July-August 2024), including attempts to advertise, site visits, and contact with local businesses and the LCC.
* The reported lack of information from the occupants of the Mercedes-Benz.

Judicial Original Quotation:

In determining the standard of “due inquiry and search,” the Member frequently referred to authoritative dicta, notably from Harrison v Nominal Defendant and Cavanagh v Nominal Defendant. As Barwick CJ explained in Harrison:

“It is not whether some search and inquiry has been made. The presence of the word ‘due’ in the subsection emphasizes that the question is whether the identity of the vehicle cannot be established though such search and inquiry as might appropriately be made in the circumstances of the case had taken place. ‘… It is a mistake, in my opinion, to divorce the words ‘after due inquiry and search’ from the total expression of the condition on which the action against the Nominal Defendant may be brought. Whether or not the tribunal of fact is satisfied that the identity of the vehicle cannot be established after such search and inquiry of which the circumstances admit will depend on all the circumstances of the case.”

This statement was determinative in guiding the Member’s holistic assessment, moving beyond a simple review of actions taken to a deeper consideration of their practical likelihood of success given the unique context.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The Insurer’s arguments failed primarily due to an overemphasis on a rigid interpretation of “promptness” and a generalized expectation of investigatory actions, without sufficient consideration of the specific circumstances of the accident and the Claimant.
* Inadequate Contextual Analysis: The Insurer did not adequately appreciate the Claimant’s incapacitation immediately following the accident, which genuinely prevented early inquiries.
* Misjudgment of Futility: The Insurer insisted on certain inquiries (e.g., extensive canvassing of industrial businesses, newspaper advertisements) that the Member found would likely have been futile, or “mere ritual,” given the nature of the accident site and the swift departure of the unidentified vehicle. The Insurer’s suggestions lacked a “realistic prospect of providing information.”
* Prejudice Argument Weakness: While the Insurer argued prejudice due to a “cold trail,” this argument was undermined by the finding that most suggested inquiries would not have been fruitful even if undertaken sooner. There was no clear link between the Claimant’s specific delays and an identifiable lost opportunity for identification.
* Distinction from Precedent: The Insurer’s reliance on cases like Zengin, which involved different statutory frameworks and factual matrices (e.g., requiring judicial discretion, or cases where clear investigatory avenues were genuinely overlooked), was not found persuasive by the Member.

Implications

1. Prioritise Medical Care, Document Everything: In the immediate aftermath of an accident, your priority is medical attention. However, as soon as practicable, begin to document every detail: police reports, medical records, and any initial recollections of the accident, as these form the bedrock of your claim.
2. “Due Inquiry and Search” is Contextual, Not a Checklist: This case underscores that there’s no fixed list of actions for “due inquiry and search.” What’s considered “due” depends heavily on the specific circumstances of your accident, your injuries, and the environment. Don’t engage in futile searches; focus your efforts on avenues with a realistic prospect of success.
3. Promptness is Key, But So is Practicality: While prompt action is important, the law recognizes genuine limitations. If you’re incapacitated, your immediate ability to investigate is excused. However, once capable, or once solicitors are engaged, active and timely investigation becomes crucial.
4. Insurers’ Obligations Matter: Insurers acting for the Nominal Defendant have obligations under the Motor Accident Guidelines to clearly inform you of your “due inquiry and search” requirements. Keep a record of all communications to ensure these duties are met.
5. Legal Representation is a Force Multiplier: This case highlights how solicitors’ methodical investigation and strategic legal arguments can navigate complex statutory requirements, even when facing challenges like an unidentified vehicle and allegations of delay. Engaging legal professionals can be pivotal in building a strong case.

Q&A Session

Q1: What if I didn’t get any details of the other vehicle involved in an accident? Can I still make a claim?
A1: Yes, potentially. If the at-fault vehicle cannot be identified, you may still be able to claim against the Nominal Defendant under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW). However, you must show that you have made “due inquiry and search” to try and establish the vehicle’s identity. This case clarifies that “due inquiry and search” is a flexible standard, considering what was reasonable given your specific circumstances after the accident.

Q2: I was seriously injured and couldn’t investigate the accident scene myself. Does this affect my “due inquiry and search” obligation?
A2: No, not necessarily. This judgment confirms that a claimant’s incapacitation immediately following an accident is a critical “circumstance of the case” that excuses them from undertaking immediate on-scene inquiries. The law does not expect you to conduct investigations while severely injured or in hospital. However, you should initiate inquiries as soon as you are capable.

Q3: The other side (the Insurer) said I waited too long to investigate, and now the “trail is cold.” What does this mean for my claim?
A3: The “trail going cold” argument means that delays in investigating might have reduced the chances of identifying the vehicle. While promptness is important, this case shows that delays might be excused if investigations would have been futile anyway, or if there were legitimate reasons for delay (like severe injury). The focus is on whether a “reasonable person” in your specific situation would have realistically been able to identify the vehicle, even with more immediate action.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
Case Subtype: Personal Injury and Compensation – Statutory Benefits Claim Against Nominal Defendant for Unidentified Vehicle.
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
Core Test (Negligence under the Civil Liability Act): While not directly applying the Civil Liability Act for this statutory benefits claim, the underlying fault of the unidentified vehicle’s driver is implicitly considered.
* Duty of Care: Was there a Duty of Care owed by the unidentified driver to other road users? (Generally owed by all drivers).
* Breach of Duty: Was there a Breach of Duty (e.g., erratic driving, close proximity, causing evasive action)? (The risk must be foreseeable and not insignificant).
* Causation: Did the breach cause the Claimant’s injury? (The “but for” test – would the injury have occurred but for the breach?).

Core Test (Damages): While not explicitly assessing damages, the claim is for statutory benefits, which are a form of compensation. The severity of injury is relevant to the claim.
* Does the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) exceed the statutory threshold (e.g., 10% or 15% for non-economic loss, depending on jurisdiction and date of injury) for certain types of claims? (Not directly applicable to a pure statutory benefits claim for weekly payments and medical expenses, but relevant for potential later claims for non-economic loss).
* Is there contributory negligence? (Could the Claimant’s own actions have contributed to the accident? This could reduce benefits).

Specific to Nominal Defendant Claims under Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW):
* Due Inquiry and Search (Section 2.30(2) MAI Act):
* Reasonableness in Circumstances: Was the inquiry and search reasonable given the specific facts of the accident (e.g., time, location, nature of unidentified vehicle) and the Claimant’s situation (e.g., injuries, incapacitation, access to information)?
* Promptness: Was it undertaken as promptly as circumstances permitted?
* Thoroughness: Was it as thorough as circumstances permitted?
* Futility: Were steps avoided that were likely to prove futile or merely ritualistic (ee.g., advertising where unlikely to yield results, canvassing areas unlikely to have witnesses/CCTV)?
* On Whose Behalf: Can the inquiry and search conducted by others (e.g., police, legal representatives) be counted as being “on behalf of or in the interest of” the Claimant?
* Inability to Establish Identity (Section 2.30(1) MAI Act): Despite reasonable inquiry and search, can the identity of the at-fault vehicle still not be established?

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
For personal injury claims involving unidentified vehicles, the statutory scheme under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) is the primary and often sole avenue for compensation. Equitable remedies like Promissory/Proprietary Estoppel or Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust are generally not applicable. This is because these claims typically require a direct pre-existing relationship or unconscionable conduct in specific property or contractual dealings, which is not present in an anonymous motor accident scenario. The statutory framework specifically addresses the unique challenge of unidentified vehicles by providing for a Nominal Defendant. When statutory avenues are exhausted, there are typically no feasible alternative common law or equitable paths for compensation for motor accident injuries in such circumstances.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
Regular Thresholds (Section 2.30 MAI Act):
* Due Inquiry and Search: The Claimant must demonstrate that due inquiry and search has been made.
* Identity Not Established: The identity of the vehicle must remain unable to be established despite these inquiries.
* Motor Accident: The injury must arise from a “motor accident” involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle on a “road” or “road related area.”

Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
* Claims for Unidentified Vehicles: The very existence of the Nominal Defendant scheme under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 is an exceptional channel for victims of accidents involving unidentified vehicles. Without this scheme, there would generally be no recourse for compensation from the at-fault party.
* Delayed Inquiry due to Incapacity: While promptness is a general expectation for “due inquiry and search,” this case illustrates that genuine incapacity due to severe injuries after an accident can constitute a reasonable cause for delay in initiating some investigatory steps. This means that a delay, if reasonably explained by the Claimant’s post-accident circumstances, does not automatically defeat the claim.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation
Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
* The interpretation of “due inquiry and search” under section 2.30 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW).
* Arguments regarding the reasonableness and futility of specific investigatory steps in the context of unidentified vehicle claims.
* Cases where a claimant’s incapacitation or the nature of the accident scene limited immediate investigatory opportunities.
* Disputes concerning the timing and adequacy of notification by an insurer regarding “due inquiry and search” obligations.

Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When your matter involves an unidentified vehicle, and your claimant undertook reasonable inquiries despite incapacitation or in an environment unlikely to yield witnesses/CCTV, citing this authority can strengthen your argument that “due inquiry and search” was satisfied. It supports the view that futile searches are not required.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case to argue for strict promptness or extensive inquiry, you should emphasize the unique circumstances of this case, such as the Claimant’s severe incapacitation, the industrial nature of the accident scene, and the Member’s findings on the futility of certain inquiries, to argue that that precedent is not directly applicable to a situation where different investigatory avenues were genuinely available and neglected.

Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Claimant / Nominal Defendant.

Conclusion
The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment highlights the dynamic interpretation of “due inquiry and search” in motor accident claims against the Nominal Defendant. It affirms that the law demands a contextual, reasonable approach to investigation, balancing promptness with practicality and the inherent challenges of identifying an elusive vehicle.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Personal Injury Commission (Ziegeler v Nominal Defendant [2025] NSWPIC 61), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.