Raad v Nominal Defendant by its agent Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 173: unidentified vehicle, due inquiry and search, and claimant credibility
This is a genuinely useful decision for hit-and-run style claims. It confirms the test is not perfection — it is whether the claimant has actually undertaken and documented a real inquiry and search.
General information only, not legal advice. This case is most relevant where an insurer says a claimant did not do enough to identify an unknown at-fault vehicle before claiming against the Nominal Defendant.
What happened?
The claimant sought statutory benefits through the Nominal Defendant pathway because the alleged at-fault vehicle could not be identified. The key issue was whether section 2.30 “due inquiry and search” had been satisfied.
According to the PIC bulletin summary, delay in inquiry steps was contested. Even so, the Member found the claimant had established due inquiry and search, and accepted that the identity of the at-fault vehicle could not be established.
Why the case matters
For claimants, this decision is practical authority against a common insurer position: “no identified vehicle, no viable claim.” That is not the legal test.
The legal test is evidence quality. If your inquiry steps are specific, recorded, and tied to time and place, your claim can still proceed even without a registration number.
What the PIC focused on
- Schedule 2(2) miscellaneous claims context and section 2.30 due inquiry/search requirement
- whether inquiry steps were genuine and sufficient in context, not just asserted in hindsight
- how delay affected (or did not defeat) the reliability of the inquiry and search evidence
- whether the vehicle identity remained unavailable despite those steps
Plain-English takeaway
If the other driver cannot be identified, your case lives or dies on process discipline. Start inquiry steps early, keep a dated log, and preserve every lead you follow (including dead ends).
In practice, a tight chronology can do more work than broad argument. Show what you did, when you did it, and what each step produced.
Frequently asked questions
- What did Raad v Nominal Defendant [2026] NSWPIC 173 decide?
- The PIC found the claimant had met the “due inquiry and search” requirement in section 2.30 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, even though the at-fault vehicle could not be identified.
- Why is this important for NSW hit-and-run claimants?
- It confirms these claims do not fail just because the other vehicle cannot be identified. The real issue is whether your search steps were real, documented, and done promptly enough to be credible.
- Did the case say delay never matters?
- No. The bulletin summary expressly notes delay was a live issue. Delay can still hurt a claim if it undermines the reliability of your inquiry steps or causes evidence loss.
- What evidence should I preserve in an unidentified-vehicle claim?
- Keep police event details, photos, location/time records, witness attempts, nearby CCTV enquiries, insurer correspondence, and a dated log of each inquiry step.
Decision source
Full decision: Raad v Nominal Defendant by its agent Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 173.