What Does “Due Inquiry and Search” Mean in a NSW CTP Claim?

In plain Australian English, it means taking the reasonable steps available in the circumstances to try to identify the motor vehicle involved in the accident. There is no universal list. The search is assessed against the actual accident and the actual injured person, not an ideal investigation imagined later with the benefit of hindsight.

Relevant considerations can include:

• the person’s injuries, shock and mental condition
• the time and opportunity to observe the vehicle
• the information available immediately afterwards
• whether witnesses or cameras were nearby
• whether the driver stopped or immediately left
• whether useful leads were followed promptly
• whether delay has a supported explanation
• whether a proposed step had any realistic prospect of assisting

The search does not have to succeed. A claimant can satisfy the requirement even though the vehicle remains unidentified. The important question is whether enough was done in the circumstances.

Section 2.30 permits an action against the Nominal Defendant where death or injury was caused by the fault of an owner or driver using or operating a motor vehicle on a road in NSW, but the vehicle’s identity cannot be established. Section 2.30(2) says a claim cannot be made under that provision unless due inquiry and search has been made. Under section 2.30(4), the inquiry or search may be proved orally or by affidavit from the person who conducted it.

Section 1.10A applies the Act’s Nominal Defendant liability provisions to statutory benefits in the same way as damages, subject to necessary or prescribed modifications. Due inquiry and search can therefore affect both statutory benefits and a damages claim. It is still only one issue. A claimant may separately need to establish a motor accident, the unidentified vehicle’s involvement and fault, causation of injury, and eligibility for the particular benefits or damages claimed.

The accident-location requirement is considered separately. Read the guide to what counts as a road or road-related area and the guide to proving the exact accident location.

Section 2.29 concerns a motor vehicle that can be identified but was not insured. Section 2.30 concerns a vehicle whose identity cannot be established. The express due inquiry and search requirement appears in the unidentified-vehicle provision.

If the vehicle is known but the driver’s name is not, that does not necessarily mean the vehicle itself is unidentified. Compare the uninsured-vehicle claim guide before treating the matter as a hit-and-run claim.

• hit-and-run accidents
• a driver stops briefly but leaves without details
• no-contact crashes caused by a vehicle forcing evasive action
• an incomplete or incorrectly recorded registration
• a witness sees a vehicle but cannot identify it
• debris or a load falls from an unidentified vehicle
• false vehicle or driver details are supplied
• CCTV is not secured before being overwritten

A physical impact with the unidentified vehicle is not always required. The Act’s definition of motor accident includes action taken to avoid a collision and a dangerous situation caused by the driving of a vehicle. That does not remove the need to prove the vehicle’s involvement and fault. See the hit-and-run claim guide and the guide to lodging a CTP claim without registration details.

The Court of Appeal has described the inquiry as one that should be prompt and thorough so far as the circumstances permit. Reasonably practical inquiries should be made while useful evidence remains available and in places where there is a realistic prospect of obtaining identifying information.

The requirement does not ordinarily mean a claimant must:

• undertake a dangerous search or personally confront a suspected driver
• access information that is not legally available to them
• conduct every theoretically possible inquiry
• repeat an inquiry that has produced a final negative result
• perform a ritual step that could not realistically identify the vehicle

Whether a step was reasonable depends on the prospect that it could identify the vehicle. The authorities recognise that a plainly futile or purely ritual inquiry is not necessarily required, but an obvious, available lead should not be ignored without explanation.

Personal safety and emergency assistance come first. Do not chase a fleeing vehicle, enter traffic or confront a driver. If you are physically and mentally able, record what can be safely observed:

• full or partial registration number
• make, model, colour and body type
• unusual markings, branding, damage or modifications
• driver and passenger descriptions
• direction of travel and exact time
• precise accident point and road position
• witness names and contact details
• nearby vehicles or premises that may hold footage

A short voice note made immediately afterwards may preserve details that are later affected by medication, treatment, pain or shock.

A prompt police report is important but is not automatically sufficient. Further steps may be reasonable where there is an obvious witness, visible camera, partial registration, identifiable business or available dashcam. Conversely, a police report may be especially significant where there were no cameras, witnesses, identifying details or other realistic avenue of inquiry.

The test is not whether a particular item appears on a checklist. It is whether the overall response was reasonable in the claimant’s circumstances.

No. Relevant inquiries may be performed by or on behalf of the injured person. Depending on the circumstances, police, family, friends, a lawyer, an investigator, a witness, the insurer or another person acting in the claimant’s interests may conduct part of the search.

This is particularly important where the claimant is hospitalised, unconscious, seriously injured, a child or otherwise unable to investigate personally. Keep records showing who made each inquiry, when it was made, what was requested and what the inquiry found. The fact that another person performed the work does not make the evidence less important.

The claimant’s physical and mental condition is highly relevant. The question is not what an uninjured observer might have done with hindsight. It is what was reasonable for that injured person at the time, having regard to pain, shock, medication, disorientation, memory and the need to obtain emergency assistance.

Evidence about capacity at the scene can include:

• ambulance and emergency department records
• fractures, bleeding, head injury or loss of consciousness
• pain scores and medication administered
• disorientation, shock or memory loss
• witness observations
• how long the other vehicle remained
• what the claimant was doing while it remained

This is fact-sensitive. The insurer may examine how long the vehicle remained, whether the claimant spoke with the driver, whether the driver appeared willing to exchange details, whether the claimant understood they were injured, whether they were capable of taking a photograph, why details were not obtained and what was done afterwards.

Age, injury, the information available at the time and when the seriousness of the injury became apparent can affect what was reasonably required. Delay still needs to be explained, but the assessment must be made in the claimant’s actual circumstances.

No, but unexplained delay can create serious problems. CCTV may be overwritten, witnesses may forget details, contact information may be lost, vehicles may be repaired, social media material may disappear and the accident location may change. Reasonable inquiries should begin promptly while useful evidence remains available.

Delay may be explicable because of matters such as:

• hospitalisation or head injury
• impaired memory or severe symptoms
• the claimant’s age
• language barriers
• initial advice that the injury was minor
• a delayed diagnosis
• reliance on someone else to investigate
• not being informed of the requirement

The evidence should explain both when the need to investigate was understood and what was done once the claimant became able to act.

The loss of CCTV does not automatically prevent a finding that due inquiry and search was made. Record when the camera was first identified, when its owner was contacted, whether preservation was requested, what the ordinary retention period was, whether police or the insurer also sought the footage, and why an earlier request was not reasonably possible.

Keep the email, message or file note showing the request and response. A documented negative result is still evidence that the lead was followed. If the footage was unavailable before the claimant could reasonably request it, explain that directly rather than leaving an unexplained gap.

A business may say it will release footage only to police, an insurer or under a formal process. Ask it to preserve the footage, record the name of the person contacted, confirm the request in writing, provide the police event number where appropriate, notify police and the insurer, and keep the business’s response.

The requirement is to make reasonable efforts. It does not ordinarily require the claimant to obtain material that the holder is not legally willing or able to release directly, but the attempt and the refusal should be documented.

A useful response is a clear chronology supported by documents, not a folder of unexplained attachments.

Identify any inquiry that could not be completed and explain why. If the insurer letter sets a response date or contains a formal decision, do not assume that the date is optional.

Motor Accident Guidelines clauses 4.136–4.141 require the insurer acting for the Nominal Defendant to explain the requirement in writing and promptly advise whether it considers the search satisfied. If it says the requirement is not met, it must identify the deficiency and how the claimant could satisfy it.

The decision must be based on the available information, be consistent with the facts and contain sufficiently detailed reasons. The insurer must act as a model litigant in Nominal Defendant claims. A bare statement that the requirement is not established may not explain the alleged deficiency adequately.

Section 2.31 may cause the Nominal Defendant to lose the right to reject on the due inquiry and search ground if it does not, within two months after the claim is made, reject on that ground or ask the claimant to conduct due inquiry and search.

It may also lose that right if it does not, within two months after being notified of the claimant’s efforts, refuse to accept that those efforts amount to due inquiry and search. Carefully record the dates of the claim, insurer request, claimant’s response and insurer decision.

These provisions concern the insurer’s right to reject on this particular ground. They do not automatically establish fault, injury, causation, statutory benefits or damages.

Schedule 2 clause 3 identifies whether due inquiry and search has been made, and whether the Nominal Defendant lost the right to reject under section 2.31, as miscellaneous claims assessment matters for the Personal Injury Commission.

The filing sequence depends on the decision wording, internal review position, claim stage and applicable time limit. An application should answer the insurer’s stated reasons and include the full chronology, supporting documents, and evidence explaining capacity and delay. Read the PIC guide, the CTP disputes guide and the case note on Raad v Nominal Defendant [2026] NSWPIC 173.

Section 2.31 allows the Nominal Defendant to apply to dismiss proceedings for failure to conduct due inquiry and search. The application generally must be made within two months after service of the statement of claim and cannot be made if the Nominal Defendant has already lost the right to reject on that ground.

If a valid application is made, the court must dismiss the proceedings unless satisfied that due inquiry and search has been made. This is why the issue should be addressed with evidence early, rather than left unresolved until litigation.

1. Report the accident to police and retain the event number.
2. Write down every remembered vehicle and driver detail.
3. Save original photographs, videos and dashcam files.
4. Obtain witness names and contact details.
5. Ask nearby camera operators to preserve footage.
6. Give partial registration and distinctive details to police and the insurer.
7. Follow credible leads about direction, ownership or business markings.
8. Record every inquiry and response in a dated search log.
9. Obtain medical evidence if injury, pain or shock affected the search.
10. Respond to the insurer with a chronology and supporting documents.

The checklist is a starting point. The appropriate investigation depends on the particular accident and the leads actually available.

Is a police report sufficient due inquiry and search?

Not automatically. A prompt police report is important evidence, but the overall question is whether other reasonably available leads also needed to be followed. If there were no witnesses, cameras, registration details or other realistic leads, the police report may carry greater practical weight.

Do I have to identify the driver as well as the vehicle?

Section 2.30 is directed to establishing the identity of the motor vehicle. If the registration and vehicle can be identified, the fact that the driver’s name is not immediately known does not necessarily make it an unidentified-vehicle claim.

Can I make a claim if I only saw part of the registration?

Potentially. Give the partial registration, vehicle description, location, time, direction and any images promptly to police and the insurer. Whether the vehicle can be identified will depend on what those details and further inquiries reveal.

Can I claim if the other vehicle did not hit me?

Potentially. The statutory definition of motor accident includes action taken to avoid a collision and a dangerous situation caused by the driving of a vehicle. You must still prove that the unidentified vehicle was involved, that its owner or driver was at fault, and that the accident caused your injury.

Do I have to knock on every door near the accident?

Not necessarily. The requirement is reasonable inquiry and search in the circumstances, not every imaginable inquiry. Obvious and potentially useful sources should not be ignored without explanation, but a step that is unsafe, unavailable or plainly futile may not be required.

What if I was taken away by ambulance?

Your injuries, pain, shock and inability to investigate at the scene are relevant. Police, family members, witnesses, lawyers or others may conduct inquiries on your behalf. Keep medical and witness evidence explaining what you were able to do at the time.

What if the vehicle was identified but had no insurance?

That may be an uninsured-vehicle claim under section 2.29 rather than an unidentified-vehicle claim under section 2.30. The vehicle identity, registration and insurance evidence should be checked before choosing the Nominal Defendant pathway.

Does a failed search mean I cannot claim?

No. The search does not have to identify the vehicle. The issue is whether reasonable and timely efforts were made in the circumstances. A well-documented search can satisfy the requirement even though every inquiry produces a negative result.

Can the insurer simply say my search was inadequate?

The Motor Accident Guidelines require sufficiently detailed written reasons. The insurer should identify the deficiency and explain how it says the requirement could be satisfied. Ask the insurer to identify the particular missing inquiry and the evidence it says could still identify the vehicle.

Can the Personal Injury Commission decide the issue?

Yes. Schedule 2 clause 3 identifies due inquiry and search, and whether the Nominal Defendant lost the right to reject on that ground, as miscellaneous claims assessment matters. The correct filing sequence depends on the decision, internal review position and claim stage.

Due inquiry and search is not determined by counting emails or businesses contacted. The real question is whether the claimant, or people acting for them, took the reasonable steps available in the circumstances to try to identify the vehicle.

A strong response shows what information was available, what the claimant could physically and mentally do, what inquiries were undertaken, when they occurred, what each inquiry found, why any further step was impossible or unlikely to assist, and why the vehicle still cannot be identified.