CTP Insurance, Insurance

Due Inquiry & Search Conducted Before Scent Went Cold

13 April, 2026

In Brief

  • Section 2.30 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) provides that the Nominal Defendant is not liable for death or injury caused by an unidentified vehicle unless the Claimant has conducted due inquiry and search into the identity of the offending vehicle.
  • Due inquiry and search must be prompt and as thorough as the circumstances permit.
  • Due inquiry and search must be conducted before the scent grows cold.
  • The Claimant, however, is not required to take steps which are likely to be futile or purely ritualistic.
  • Due inquiry and search may be conducted by another person or entity in the interests of the Claimant.

Facts

The decision in Raad v Nominal Defendant by its agent Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 173 was delivered on 2 April 2026 and published on 9 April 2026.

The Claimant was involved in a pedestrian accident on 6 February 2023. Whilst crossing Canterbury Road, Bankstown, a blue sedan exited a driveway and knocked him down.

The offending vehicle was either a Ford or a Holden. The offending driver exited his vehicle and asked whether the Claimant was alright, before departing the scene. No details were exchanged before the offending driver left.

At the time of the accident, the Claimant was taking a lunch break after attending some workplace training. The other trainees assisted him following the accident. The Claimant was subsequently diagnosed with a fractured right leg and other musculoskeletal injuries.

The Nominal Defendant denied the claim for statutory benefits on the grounds that the Claimant failed to conduct due inquiry and search into the identity of the offending vehicle, as required by section 2.30 of MAIA.

 

Due Inquiry and Search

The Claimant took the following steps to identify the offending vehicle:

  • 7 February 2023 – the Claimant reported the accident to Bankstown Police who conducted their own inquiries, including canvassing for CCTV footage of the accident.
  • 17 February 2023 – the Claimant sent emails to businesses adjacent to the accident site, requesting CCTV footage.
  • 25 September 2024 – the Claimant placed an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald requesting information from the public.
  • September 2024 – the Claimant placed flyers around the accident site requesting information about the at-fault driver.

The Claimant also sought information from his employer regarding the identities of the other trainees who assisted him following the accident. His requests, however, were denied on privacy grounds. Once proceedings were commenced in the Personal Injury Commission, the Claimant sought to obtain that information via a Direction for Production.

 

The Member’s Decision

The Member concluded that the Claimant had conducted due inquiry and search for the following reasons:

  • The Claimant had an opportunity to photograph the offending vehicle at the scene or to otherwise record its details. A reasonable person in the Claimant’s position, however, may not have had the presence of mind, at the scene, to record the details of the offending vehicle given the pain they were experiencing immediately following the accident.
  • The Claimant reported the MVA to the Police the day after the accident and emailed local businesses, seeking relevant CCTV, within 11 days of the accident. These enquiries were appropriate and sufficiently prompt.
  • The steps conducted in September 2024 – over 18 months post-accident – were undertaken after the scent had gone cold.

Why This Case is Important

The decision in Raad provides a useful summary of the principles which must be applied in assessing whether a claimant has conducted due inquiry and search into the identity of an offending vehicle.

Whilst the Member found that steps undertaken over 18 months post-accident were undertaken after the scent had gone cold, the Member appears to have accepted that the steps taken promptly – within the first 11 days post-accident – were sufficient to discharge the Claimant’s statutory obligation to conduct due inquiry and search. Those steps included reporting the accident to the Police the day following the accident.

 

 

If you would like to discuss this case note, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with CTP Practice Group Leader Peter Hunt today.

 

 

Additional McCabes Resources

Recent Insights

View all
CTP Insurance

Claimant Who Suffered an Unforeseen Medical Episode Not Wholly or Mostly at Fault

The decision in McManus v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPIC 175 was delivered on 23 March 2026 and published on 2 April 2026.

Published by Peter Hunt
7 April, 2026
CTP Insurance

Pointless Physiotherapy Found Not Reasonable and Necessary

The decision in AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Zawit [2026] NSWPICMP 186 was delivered on 12 March 2026 and published on 27 March 2026.

Published by Peter Hunt
30 March, 2026