Sweedman v Transport Accident Commission

Private international law – Motor accident – Applicable law – Accident occurred in New South Wales between a car registered in Victoria and driven by a Victorian resident and a car registered in New South Wales and driven by a New South Wales resident – Accident assumed to have been caused by negligence of New South Wales driver – Victorian driver and passenger obtained compensation payments from the Transport Accident Commission pursuant to Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) – The Commission sued the New South Wales driver in the County Court of Victoria, exercising federal jurisdiction, for indemnity pursuant to Transport Accident Act, s 104 – Alternative avenue of redress was available to the Victorian residents under the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW) – Whether the regime established by the Motor Accidents Act supplanted that of the Transport Accident Act – Whether identification of the law of Victoria as the applicable law by virtue of common law choice of law rules and the operation of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 80 would be inconsistent with the operation of the Constitution.

Private international law – Choice of law – Applicable choice of law rule – Action brought on a statutory obligation of the appellant to indemnify the respondent – Statute provided no particular method of enforcing the obligation – Where appropriate action for enforcing the right of indemnity is an action in the nature of a quantum meruit – Where action brought in federal jurisdiction – Whether applicable law is the law of the State with which the obligation of the appellant to indemnify the Commission has the closest connection.

Statutes – Construction – Motor accident – Where statutes of different States said to be capable of being invoked in relation to the same circumstances – Transport Accident Act invoked in proceedings in County Court of Victoria for an indemnity claim – Whether the provisions of the Motor Accidents Act spoke to, or in opposition to, those proceedings.

Constitutional law – Inconsistency between laws of States – Where statutes of different States said to be capable of being invoked in relation to the same circumstances – Transport Accident Act invoked in proceedings in County Court of Victoria for an indemnity claim – New South Wales funds depleted in Victorian proceedings – Whether any inconsistency or clash between Victorian and New South Wales statutes – Whether State of New South Wales had the greater governmental interest in providing for the compelled financial consequences of a motor vehicle accident occurring in New South Wales – Whether any such inconsistency denied the operation of the Judiciary Act, s 80.

Constitutional law (Cth) – Discrimination between residents – Resident of New South Wales subject to claim to indemnity under Victorian statute – Transport Accident Act, s 104(1) provided that that provision did not apply to a person entitled to be indemnified by the Commission under s 94 of that Act – Section 94 obliged the Commission to indemnify persons who have paid the transport accident charge levied upon owners of registered motor vehicles under Transport Accident Act, s 109(1) for the relevant period – New South Wales driver would not have been subject to claim to indemnity had she been resident in Victoria – Where New South Wales driver bound to hold third-party insurance pursuant to Motor Accidents Act, ss 8 and 11 – Whether Transport Accident Act, s 104(1) subjected New South Wales driver to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to her if she were resident in Victoria.

Words and phrases – "inconsistency".

Constitution – ss 75(iv), 92, 109, 117.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – ss 30, 39, 80.

Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW) – ss 2, 8, 11, 40-82A.

Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) – ss 1, 8, 27, 35, 94, 104, 109.