He was riding his delivery motorbike when the rear wheel struck a lump of wood that had just fallen out of the back of a concreter’s truck.  

As he was unable to identify the truck, Mr Ford and his representing solicitor, Travis Schultz, managing partner at Travis Schultz & Partners, agreed on the quantum of the claim with the nominal defendant as $600,000.  

The nominal defendant is a statutory body established under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, charged with the purpose of compensating people who are injured as a result of the negligent driving of unidentified and/or uninsured motor vehicles. 

The nominal defendant defended the claim, arguing that Mr Ford had not undertaken proper inquiry and search to find the offending vehicle. 

Under the legislation, the nominal defendant is only liable if the injured person has undertaken reasonable steps to try and identify the vehicle involved.  

Mr Ford immediately reported the accident to his superiors at Australia Post, and it did its own internal investigation.

He also asked nearby businesses if they had CCTV footage from the day that might capture the road, but no footage existed. 

VIEW ALL

After retaining lawyers, Mr Ford spent time driving down nearby streets, looking out for the truck, although it was many months after the accident. 

On 31 August 2022, Justice Glenn Martin of the Supreme Court at Brisbane dismissed Mr Ford’s claim, finding that he had not undertaken due inquiry and search. 

Mr Ford appealed the judgment, and on 29 April 2023, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland delivered its judgment.

Mr Ford and his counsel successfully established that “proper inquiry and search” did not require him to undertake the steps suggested by the respondent, and accepted by the primary judge.

The judges presiding over the appeal were Justice Philip Morrison, Justice Robert Gotterson, and Justice Peter Applegarth AM.

The bench noted that while Mr Ford did not know he was injured at the moment of injury, the primary judge had incorrectly equated the pain that Mr Ford felt at the moment of the injury with his knowing that he was aware he had suffered a compensable injury. 

The judges maintained that the primary judge applied a standard of “proper inquiry and search” in the time following the injury, finding that Mr Ford should have pursued the vehicle to obtain the licence plate number.

Instead, the judges asserted that the “proper inquiry and search” standard did not require the shocked rider of a small motorcycle, who believed he was not injured, to pursue the vehicle.

The second issue on the appeal was whether Mr Ford should have returned to the scene on a subsequent evening in the hope of observing that same vehicle. 

The judges found that searching the local road network on a subsequent occasion or occasions was unlikely to be productive. 

As a result, “proper inquiry and search” did not require those steps to be carried out.

The court found that the appellant’s claim be allowed, with judgment entered for the appellant against the respondent for the agreed quantum of his claim, together with interest to be assessed if not agreed upon.

The respondent was also instructed to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. 

Mr Ford spoke about the impact the injury has had on his life, noting that he has had to resign from his position at Australia Post because of his inability to do the work. 

“It’s a bittersweet victory for me and my family, given that I haven’t been able to continue to work because of my injuries,” Mr Ford said.

“However, I’m grateful for the support that the Queensland CTP scheme will provide to enable me and my family to survive now that I’m unable to return to my normal employment.

“There are many laws in place, which are there to help us, and I’m sure, like me, many people don’t realise what they’re entitled to.”

“The outcome has restored my faith in our legal system when the court of appeal can oversee cases like mine and correct what, at least to me, was an injustice following the trial decision,” he stated.

Mr Schultz also commented on the outcome: “Where unidentified vehicles are involved in causing or contributing to accidents, it is critically important that an injured person gets legal advice quickly so that they don’t run into issues such as those which arose in Trent’s case.”

“Unfortunately, Trent had been unaware that he was even entitled to make a CTP claim as a result of being injured in the unusual way he was, during the course of his work.”

“It underscores the need for the public to be better informed as to the role of the nominal defendant and when they are entitled to the benefit of our CTP scheme, when an unidentified vehicle is involved,” he added.