The decision in Bouquet v Insurance Commission of Western Australia [2026] WADC 37 serves as an important reminder of the obligations placed upon claimants seeking compensation arising from accidents involving unidentified vehicles.
The District Court of Western Australia refused leave for the plaintiff to proceed with his claim against the Insurance Commission of Western Australia (ICWA), finding that he had not undertaken the required “due search and inquiry” to identify the alleged at-fault vehicle and, in any event, had failed to prove negligence.
The plaintiff alleged that he was injured in a motorcycle accident on 28 January 2021 while travelling eastbound on the Graham Farmer Freeway in Perth. He claimed that after overtaking a four-wheel drive vehicle using a feeder lane and returning to the left lane, an unidentified car moved into his lane from the right. To avoid a collision, he dropped his motorcycle, slid across the road, and suffered various injuries, including ligament damage, a dislocated toe, and soft tissue injuries.
The alleged offending vehicle did not stop and was never identified. The plaintiff lodged an online crash report with ICWA shortly after the accident but did not make further enquiries with police or Main Roads to obtain CCTV footage or identify the vehicle.
The parties agreed the quantum of damages, leaving liability as the sole issue for determination.
The Court identified three key questions:
The Court dismissed the claim and refused leave to proceed.
Failure to Conduct “Due Search and Inquiry”
The Court held that s 7(3) of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) imposes a positive obligation on claimants to undertake investigations aimed at identifying the vehicle involved. Merely notifying the Commission of a claim is insufficient.
Although the plaintiff asserted that he had “told the police” about the accident, there was no evidence that he lodged a formal report, followed up with police, contacted Main Roads, sought CCTV footage, or undertook any other practical step to identify the vehicle.
The Court found that obtaining CCTV footage or making enquiries with authorities would not have been unreasonable or burdensome. CCTV footage from the relevant location was only retained for 31 days unless preservation was requested, meaning a lost opportunity to investigate the incident.
Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the “due search and inquiry” requirement under s 7(3).
No Relief Under Section 29A
The plaintiff also failed to persuade the Court that his non-compliance resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or other reasonable cause under s 29A of the aforementioned act. The Court found his assumptions that police or another entity would investigate on his behalf were not reasonable. Further, ICWA was materially prejudiced because the opportunity to identify the vehicle had been lost.
Negligence Not Proven
The plaintiff was the sole witness to the occurrence and therefore bore the burden of establishing both how the accident happened and that it resulted from another driver’s negligence.
The Court identified significant inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s evidence, including conflicting accounts of his speed at the time of the accident and inconsistent statements regarding his use of methylamphetamine.
Ultimately, the Court was not satisfied that the accident occurred in the manner alleged or that negligence on the part of the unidentified driver had been established.
1. Claimants Must Actively Investigate
The decision confirms that a claimant cannot simply assume that police, insurers or government agencies will investigate an unidentified vehicle accident. Positive and proactive steps are required.
2. Reporting a Claim Is Not Enough
The Court emphasised that notifying ICWA of a claim is separate from the obligation to conduct “due search and inquiry”. Both requirements must be satisfied.
3. CCTV and Electronic Evidence Must Be Secured Promptly
The loss of CCTV footage due to delayed enquiries proved significant. Practitioners should move quickly to identify and preserve surveillance footage following accidents involving unidentified vehicles.
4. Sole-Witness Evidence Will Be Closely Scrutinised
Consistent with earlier authorities, where liability depends almost entirely on a plaintiff's account, the Court will examine that evidence with particular care.
5. Credibility Remains Critical
Even where a defendant cannot produce an alternative version of events, a plaintiff must still establish their case on the balance of probabilities. The absence of contradiction does not compel acceptance of the plaintiff’s evidence.
For Insurers
For Defendants and Claims Managers
This case provides a clear warning to claimants and legal representatives that unidentified vehicle claims require more than a prompt notification to the insurer. The statutory obligation to undertake “due search and inquiry” is substantive and demands practical efforts to identify the vehicle involved. Failure to do so may be fatal to a claim, particularly where lost evidence prejudices the insurer’s ability to investigate. The decision also reaffirms that courts will rigorously assess the credibility and reliability of sole-witness evidence before finding negligence.
This article was written by, Raji Abraham, Law Graduate, Insurance.