Landmark Decision: Melenewycz v Whitfield [2015] NSWSC 1482

Feb 2, 2024 | Publication

In a significant legal precedent, the New South Wales Supreme Court addressed the applicability of blameless accident provisions in motor accident compensation cases, specifically concerning single-vehicle accidents. The case of Melenewycz v Whitfield [2015] NSWSC 1482 centered around a plaintiff who was riding a motorcycle when he was struck by a kangaroo, raising pertinent questions regarding liability and compensation under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.

The plaintiff, in this case, was riding a motorcycle owned by a friend when the unforeseeable incident occurred on an unsealed dirt road. Crucially, the court found that neither the plaintiff nor the owner of the motorcycle could be held responsible for the collision with the kangaroo, as no act or omission on their part contributed to the accident.

At the heart of the matter was the interpretation of the blameless accident provisions outlined in Part 1.2 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (sections 7A-7I), which address recovery for accidents where no party is deemed at fault. The court’s ruling affirmed that these provisions can indeed apply to situations involving single-vehicle accidents, provided that neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle contributed to the incident through any negligent act or omission.

However, the case took a significant turn when the NSW Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the insured owner, represented by the insurance company. The appellate court’s decision rested on the premise that for an accident to be considered blameless, the owner of the vehicle must not be involved in any aspect of its use or operation. Consequently, the owner could not be held liable or deemed at fault in a situation where they had no direct involvement in the accident.

This ruling sheds light on the complex interplay between liability, fault, and compensation in motor accident cases, particularly those involving unforeseeable circumstances such as wildlife collisions. It underscores the importance of careful legal interpretation and application of legislation, especially in cases where traditional notions of fault may not readily apply.

Ultimately, the decision in Melenewycz v Whitfield [2015] NSWSC 1482 establishes a precedent for future cases involving blameless accidents, providing clarity and guidance for both legal practitioners and individuals seeking compensation for injuries sustained in similar circumstances.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

How does the court assess pain and suffering?

In New South Wales (NSW), the assessment of pain and suffering—referred to legally as non-economic loss—is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA"). This is compensation for the intangible effects of the injury, such as pain and suffering, loss of...

Property Disputes – How Can They Arise?

Property disputes arise in many different ways – not only in commercial contexts but also in residential settings.  Some of the types of property disputes include:...

Can a Child under 14 years commit a Crime?

In New South Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.  A child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence. For children aged 10 to under 14, there is a legal presumption known as doli incapax, which assumes the child is incapable of...

Why is it important to know who your client is?

In a range of contexts, it is important to know who your client is. In most professional service contexts, the identity of the client is the starting point to providing advice.  If it is not clear who the professional advisor is advising, this can cause issues as...

Mental Harm Damages Following Birth Trauma: Lessons from Sorbello

In South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2024] NSWCA 14, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided timely guidance on two important issues in personal injury litigation: how courts choose between competing expert opinions on mental harm, and...

Damages for Defamation – Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275

A family dispute resolution practitioner was awarded $150,000 in aggravated damages, $10,000 in interest, and an injunction in a recent Supreme Court of New South Wales case. The defendant posted defamatory statements about the plaintiff on WordPress, Facebook, and...

Review Panel Determines Right Hand Injury as Non-Threshold Injury

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has ruled in Tasseli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 49 that damage to pre-existing surgical hardware constitutes a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and...

What are 5 legal requirements for a business?

When a new business is set up, there are various legal aspects which should be considered.  Some are more important than others in the early stages.  Obviously the nature of the business will dictate more specific legal requirements. We set out below some...

Court Dismisses Group Proceeding

A significant class action against Waller Legal Pty Ltd has been halted after the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the proceeding should no longer continue as a group proceeding. The case, Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42, involved...