New defendants added to Hunter Valley bus crash class action

Lead plaintiff Adam Bray was the father of Zachary Bray, one of 10 passengers killed when a bus flipped on Wine Country Drive in June 2023. The driver, Brett Button, was sentenced to 32 years behind bars with a non-parole period of 24 years for his role in the crash.

Bray has sought damages for negligence and a breach of duty of care over the design features of the crash location, known in the class action proceedings as the Greta interchange.

ACCIONA and AECOM were originally added by Transport for NSW as cross-defendants. Button and the bus company, LINQ Buslines, were also subject to cross-claims but were not included in the amended statement of claim as new defendants.

Transport for NSW pointed the finger at ACCIONA and AECOM because both were said to be involved in, or were otherwise responsible for, the design and construction of the interchange and the certification of it being suitable for use.

In a directions hearing before the NSW Supreme Court on Friday (11 June) afternoon, Justice Peter Garling said it was clear the plaintiff only thought to add ACCIONA and AECOM as defendants after the cross-claims were filed, but said there should be no criticism.

“No doubt he knew little about the involvement of those cross-defendants and knew little of the arrangements between Transport for NSW and the cross-defendants,” Justice Garling said.

VIEW ALL

While AECOM neither opposed nor consented to being added as a defendant, counsel for ACCIONA, Benjamin Goodyear, said his client should not be added because compensation payments were already being made to the crash victims through QBE Insurance, the compulsory third-party insurance company for Button and LINQ.

“My client … has a concern that after the statutory scheme plays out, there is a question as to whether there will be any claimant left uncompensated [at the end of the trial],” Goodyear said.

Goodyear also flagged that ACCIONA could bring its own cross-claims if it was added as a defendant, meaning it was likely the proceedings would “carry on for a number of years and cost millions of dollars”.

In response, counsel for the class action said the victims of the crash were entitled to a lump-sum payment, rather than spending year after year “turning up with invoices to get reimbursed by QBE”.

Further, he said that under the Civil Liability Act, the victims would be entitled to a higher payment for non-economic loss – such as whole-person impairment – than they would if the compensation was left to QBE Insurance and the Motor Accident Injuries Act.

Justice Garling said there was no persuasive evidence before the court to suggest adding ACCIONA and AECOM as defendants would involve any extra evidence, interlocutory proceedings, or length of time in the preparation of the case and conduct at trial.

“As it is, if [ACCIONA] wishes to join other parties to the proceedings, then it is entitled to do so by filing a cross-claim, who would be entitled to file cross-claims against other existing cross-defendants, should it choose to do so,” Justice Garling said.

“But how it chooses to conduct its litigation would not vary depending on whether it is merely a cross-defendant, or whether it is a defendant and a cross-defendant.”

Addressing ACCIONA’s concerns of costs and time, Justice Garling said this would be nothing more than the position it is already in.

“That being so, it seems to me that it is appropriate to grant the plaintiff’s application for leave to file an amended statement of claim, joining [ACCIONA and AECOM],” Justice Garling said.