Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QMC
  3. 2025
  4. Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith - [2025] QMC 4

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith[2025] QMC 4

Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith[2025] QMC 4

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Anor [2025] QMC 4

PARTIES:

Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd

(Plaintiff)

v

Kristy Marie Smith

(Defendant)

&

Tony Bielby

(Third-party)

FILE NO/S:

M053843/22

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17/02/25 .

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

06/08/2024

MAGISTRATE:

Pinder

ORDER:

  1. I give judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $10,858.56.
  2. The defendant’s third-party proceedings claiming both indemnity and contribution from the third-party and damages for the defendant’s loss and damage are dismissed
  3. In respect of a claim for interest and costs I direct the parties file and serve written submissions to be no more than five typed A4 pages as follows:
  1. The plaintiff within 14 days
  2. The defendant within 28 days

CATCHWORDS:

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT – NEGLIGENCE – THIRD-PARTY PROCEEDINGS

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 194

CASES:

Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 48

COUNSEL:

Mr C. Templeton for the plaintiff

Mr W. Seewald for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

MK Legal Group for the plaintiff

William Roberts Lawyers for the defendant

INTRODUCTION

  1. [1]
    The plaintiff, defendant, and third-party were involved in a motor vehicle accident on 21 March 2022 on Johnson Road, Forestdale.
  1. [2]
    The plaintiff has commenced proceedings against the defendant claiming damages for negligence for property damage arising out of the collision in the sum of $10,858.56, together with interest and costs.
  1. [3]
    The defendant denies that she was negligent and alleges that the accident was caused by the third-party’s negligence when he collided with the rear of her vehicle and caused it to collide with the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle.

THE PLEADINGS

  1. [4]
    The pleadings filed in the proceeding are as follows:
  1. –Claim and statement of claim – filed 28 September 2022
  1. –Notice of intention to defend and defence – filed 7 August 2023
  1. –Third-party notice and statement of claim of the defendant against the third-party – filed 8 August 2023
  1. –Plaintiff’s reply to the defence – filed 22 August 2023
  1. [5]
    A consideration of the pleadings as between the plaintiff and the defendant define the issues at trial on the following basis:
  1. –The plaintiff was the owner or in the alternative bailee, of a 2021 Hyundai i30 motor vehicle registration number 311 BE6.
  1. –The plaintiff was travelling on Johnson Road, Forestdale.
  1. –The defendant was the driver of a Nissan X-TRAIL motor vehicle registration number 09SMT and was travelling on Johnson Road, Forestdale behind the plaintiff’s vehicle.
  1. –The defendant’s vehicle collided into the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle causing damage.
  1. –The plaintiff alleges that the defendant was negligent and alleges the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to avoid the collision.
  1. –The plaintiff alleges the defendant breached the duty of care (and was negligent) and alleged a number of failures by the defendant by which she was negligent.
  1. –The defendant denies that she was negligent and alleges that the collision was caused by the third-party colliding into the rear of the defendant’s vehicle causing the defendant’s vehicle to collide into the plaintiff’s vehicle.
  1. –The defendant alleges that the collision occurred as a result of the third-party’s negligence and pleads a number of particulars of that negligence.

THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS

  1. [6]
    At the commencement of the hearing the defendant made admissions in relation to two issues on the pleadings which had been the subject of non-admissions, namely:
  1. –An admission that the plaintiff was the owner or bailee of the Hyundai i30 motor vehicle with standing to sue
  1. –The quantum of the plaintiff’s claim (the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff) in the amount claimed being $10,858.56.[1]

THIRD-PARTY PROCEEDINGS

  1. [7]
    The defendant by third-party notice and statement of claim of the defendant against the third-party claims both:
  1. –Indemnity or contribution from the third-party against the plaintiff’s claim and costs (as pleaded in the statement of claim)
  1. –The defendant’s loss and damage in the sum of $18,344.75 (together with interest and costs)
  1. [8]
    The defendant’s pleaded case against the third-party alleges that:
  1. –The defendant was the driver of a Nissan X-TRAIL motor vehicle registration number 09SMT and was travelling on Johnson Road, Forestdale.
  1. –The third-party was the “owner or in the alternative a bailee of a white Toyota LandCruiser motor vehicle bearing registration number 266 XYP.”
  1. –The third-party (as owner or in the alternative bailee of the Toyota LandCruiser motor vehicle) owed the defendant a duty of care.
  1. –On 21 March 2022 a series of collisions occurred on Johnson Road, Forestdale between the third-party vehicle, the defendant’s vehicle, and the plaintiff’s vehicle.
  1. –That the third-party vehicle was travelling directly behind the defendant’s vehicle and collided into the rear of the defendant’s vehicle causing the defendant’s vehicle to collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
  1. –That the collisions occurred as a result of the third-party’s negligence (and provided particulars of that negligence).
  1. –Further in the alternative, the defendant pleads negligence by reason of the maxim res ipsa loquitur.
  1. –That as a result of the collisions and the third-party’s negligence, the defendant suffered loss and damage in the sum of $18,344.75.
  1. [9]
    The third-party was served with the third-party notice and statement of claim on 26 October 2022.[2] An affidavit deposing as to service of the third-party notice and statement of claim upon the third party,  was sworn on 9 November 2023 was filed by leave at the hearing on 6 August 2024.[3]
  1. [10]
    The third-party Mr Bielby appeared at the hearing both as a party and under subpoena from the plaintiff. He appeared pro se (without legal representation) and did not participate to any real extent in the hearing. He was called to give evidence as a witness in the plaintiff’s case.
  1. [11]
    The third-party has not filed a defence to the third-party notice and statement of claim by the defendant as against the third-party. The defendant’s counsel was invited to make submissions about the position as between the defendant and the third-party at the commencement of the trial and apart from seeking and obtaining to leave to read and file an affidavit of service, did not do so.
  1. [12]
    Both counsel for the plaintiff and defendant provided written submissions after the hearing concluded.
  1. [13]
    The defendant’s submissions in respect of the third-party proceedings are contained within paragraphs 18 – 22.

CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY BY THE DEFENDANT AGAINST THE THIRD-PARTY

  1. [14]
    The defendant contends that she is entitled to judgement indemnifying her in respect of the plaintiff’s claim (if successful) upon the basis:
  1. –Pursuant to r 166 – there are deemed admissions (oddly expressed in the submission “the allegations of fact made by the defendant in their statement of claim against the third party are taken”).
  1. –Pursuant to r 201(4) provides that ch 9 pt 1 div 2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR)) applies to third-party proceedings as if the defendant made a claim as plaintiff and the third-party as defendant. The effect of that rule is to apply r 284 (Judgement by Default – Unliquidated Damages) to the claim brought by the third-party proceedings for indemnity.

DEFENDANT’S CLAIM AGAINST THE THIRD-PARTY

  1. [15]
    The defendant’s submissions are that she is entitled to a judgement on her claim against the third-party upon the basis that:
  1. –Pursuant to r 166 (Deemed Admissions) and relying on r 205(1)(a)
  1. –Pursuant to r 284(2) (Judgement by Default – Unliquidated Damages­­)
  1. [16]
    The third-party was a party in the proceedings (although it is not apparent if the plaintiff and defendant’s written submissions were given to him). He appeared pro se and had limited involvement at trial. In circumstances where a party was not legally represented and in notwithstanding not having made submissions in respect of their position regarding the relief sought against them (here the third-party proceedings claiming indemnity and the claim for damages) the court should hold the party seeking to prove an entitlement to judgement against that not legally represented party strictly to proof.
  1. [17]
    The third-party proceedings do not plead that the third-party was the driver of the white Toyota LandCruiser but rather at paragraph 4(b) of the statement of claim of the defendant – “the owner or in the alternative a bailee of the white Toyota Landcruiser motor vehicle.” The defendant’s pleadings do not articulate how an owner or alternatively bailee of a motor vehicle, is liable in negligence in this claim.
  1. [18]
    The filing of a third-party notice is provided for by r 194 (UCPR).
  1. [19]
    Rule 194 provides as follows:
  1. Unless the court gives leave –
  1. A third-party notice may not be filed by a defendant until the defendant has file a defence; and
  1. A third-party notice must be filed within 28 days after the end of whichever of the following periods ends last –
  1. The time limited for the filing of the defence of the defendant who makes the third-party claim (the “prescribed period”);
  1. If the plaintiff agrees to an extension of the prescribed period – the period agreed to.
  1. An application for leave to file a third-party notice must be served on the plaintiff.
  1. However, the court may order the application to be served on another party who has filed a notice of intention to defend.
  1. If the court gives leave to the defendant to file a third-party notice, it may give directions about filing and serving the notice.
  1. [20]
    If the time limits provided in r 194(1)(b) are not complied with, a third-party notice can only be filed with leave of the court.
  1. [21]
    The chronology of the pleadings is relevant to whether or not the defendant required leave of the court to file the third-party notice.
  1. [22]
    Relevantly:
  1. –The claim and statement of claim were filed on 28 September 2022.
  1. –The claim and statement of claim were served on the defendant on 5 October 2022.
  1. –An affidavit proving service of the claim and statement of claim on the defendant was filed on 22 March 2023.
  1. –A notice of intention to defendant and defence were filed on 7 August 2023.
  1. –The third-party notice and statement of claim by the defendant against the third party were filed on 8 August 2023.
  1. [23]
    As the claim and statement of claim were served on the defendant on 5 October 2022, the time limited for filing of the defence of the defendant expired on 3 November 2022 . That being, the time limited for filing of the defence by the defendant – 28 days after the day the claim was served.[4]
  1. [24]
    Rule 194 therefore permits the defendant to file a third-party notice only if:
  1. –The defendant has filed a defence.
  1. –The third-party notice is filed within 28 days of the time limited for filing a defence – that is, within 28 days of 3 November 2022(the prescribed period).
  1. [25]
    The defendant must have filed the third-party notice within 28 days of 3 November 2022 – that is, by 2 December 2022.
  1. [26]
    The time limit provided by r 194(1)(b) can only be extended past 2 December 2022 if the plaintiff has agreed to an extension of the prescribed period – then the third-party notice must be filed within 28 days of the agreed extension period.[5]
  1. [27]
    If the defendant has not filed the third-party notice within the time limits prescribed by r 194(1)(b) then the third-party notice cannot be filed unless the court gives leave.
  1. [28]
    In Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd,[6] the Court of Appeal confirmed, in respect of r 194 that leave to file the third-party notice was required.
  1. [29]
    The Court of Appeal decision confirmed the decision at first instance[7] where the court, in considering the chronology of the proceedings, noted that the time limit prescribed by r 194(1)(b) had ended.[8] Rule 194, as considered by the Supreme Court in Just GI Pty Ltd (ibid) and confirmed in the Court of Appeal decision was at that time September/October 1999, in identical terms to the current rule.
  1. [30]
    The Court of Appeal decision therefore confirms that the defendant required leave to file the third-party notice.
  1. [31]
    The defendant bears the onus of proving either:
  1. 1)
    The time limit prescribed by r 194(1)(b) has been complied with – which would require proving the plaintiff agreed to an extension of the prescribed period; or
  1. 2)
    The court had given leave for the filing of the third-party notice.
  1. [32]
    The defendant has adduced no evidence and filed no material which confirms that either of those prerequisites have occurred. Indeed, the court’s registry’s index confirms that no order of the court giving leave to issue the third-party notice has been made in these proceedings.
  1. [33]
    The defendant having failed to comply with the provisions of r 194(1)(b) has not filed, as required by the rule, a valid third-party notice. The third-party notice and statement of claim of the defendant against the third-party incompetent.
  1. [34]
    The defendant’s third-party proceedings against the third-party Tony Bielby are therefore not properly on foot and the defendant is not entitled to any judgement or other relief as against the third-party.

THE CASE FOR DETERMINATION AT TRIAL

  1. [35]
    The findings in paragraphs 33 and 34 above confirm that the third-party proceedings were not properly issued and cannot be continued.
  1. [36]
    There are no proceedings validly on foot as between the defendant and the third-party, notwithstanding that the third-party personally appeared at the trial, albeit as a subpoenaed witness in the plaintiff’s case.
  1. [37]
    For those reasons, the only issues for determination at the hearing were the plaintiff’s claim as against the defendant in negligence for loss and damage to the plaintiff’s motor vehicle.
  1. [38]
    As noted, formal admissions were made by the defendant at the commencement of the trial as to:
  1. –The plaintiff’s standing to bring the proceedings (as owner or bailee)
  1. –The quantum of the plaintiff’s damages agreed in the sum of $10,858.56
  1. [39]
    Therefore, as between the plaintiff and the defendant, the only issue for the court’s consideration is whether the plaintiff has established, as pleaded in the statement of claim, that the defendant was negligent and caused the collision which caused damage to the plaintiff’s motor vehicle.
  1. [40]
    The defendant has formally admitted in the defence that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care in respect of the management and control of her motor vehicle.[9] The defendant has also formally admitted in the defence that the defendant’s vehicle collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle causing damage to the rear driver side of the plaintiff’s vehicle.[10]
  1. [41]
    The plaintiff has pleaded that the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant by:
  1. a)
    Failing to maintain a safe distance from the plaintiff’s vehicle;
  1. b)
    Failing to manage and control the defendant’s vehicle with care;
  1. c)
    Failing to keep a proper look out for the plaintiff’s vehicle which was travelling directly in front of the defendant’s vehicle;
  1. d)
    Failing to observe the standard required for safe driving by driving too close to the plaintiff’s vehicle;
  1. e)
    Failing to apply the brakes in time to avoid colliding in the plaintiff’s vehicle
  1. f)
    Failing to exercise reasonable skill and care in the driving and management of the defendant’s vehicle;
  1. g)
    Failing to stop, slow down, swerve or otherwise manoeuvre the defendant’s vehicle so as to avoid colliding into the plaintiff’s vehicle; and
  1. h)
    Failing to comply with the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld).[11]
  1. [42]
    The defendant has denied those allegations of negligence.[12]
  1. [43]
    The defendant alleges that the collision was caused by the negligence of the third-party,[13] or contributed to by the negligence of the third-party.[14]
  1. [44]
    The defendant does not in the defence (and the defendant’s pleaded case) allege contributory negligence as against the plaintiff. The plaintiff still carries the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities, in the circumstances of the accident, that the defendant was negligent.
  1. [45]
    The defendant’s admissions that the defendant’s vehicle collided with the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle and caused damage and the agreement as to the quantum of that damage means that the plaintiff is not required to prove the issue of causation.

EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

  1. [46]
    The plaintiff called evidence from:
  1. –Mr Somil Mehra (the driver of the plaintiff’s motor vehicle)
  1. –Mr Tony Bielby (noted on the pleadings as third-party and the driver of a following motor vehicle)
  1. [47]
    The defendant gave evidence in her own case as the driver of her motor vehicle.

EVIDENCE – MR SOMIL MEHRA

  1. [48]
    The evidence of Mr Mehra was:
  1. –On 21 March 2022 he was the driver of a Hyundai i30 motor vehicle and was travelling along Johnsons Road, Forestdale.
  1. –He described the incident in these terms:

“And eventually when I was going to the road I see a light traffic ahead, they all were stop and I went to the traffic and stop over there for like a couple of seconds and suddenly from behind I got like a smash, a big smash, and then I feel another one.”[15]

  1. –His car was stationary when he felt the impact.
  1. –Before the impact he was not paying attention to the vehicles behind him.
  1. –In respect of the impact he said:

“I think the impact was very heavy and like when I got the first impact it was quite heavy. I just went forward and another impact was led me forward to hit that car in front of mine.”[16]

  1. –He said there were two impacts from behind to his vehicle.
  1. –The first impact was more intense. The second impact pushed him forward into the car in front of him.
  1. [49]
    He was cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel and in evidence in cross-examination:
  1. –He said he felt two impacts.
  1. –That his vehicle collided with the vehicle in front of him.
  1. –He was shown photographs (Exhibit 3) depicting the damage to his motor vehicle both front and rear.
  1. –It was put to him that there was only one impact in these terms:

“Is it possible you felt one bump behind and one bump when the front of your car impacted the car in front of you – no, because the impact that I’m describing is like that impact let me forward, like my neck on that day was quite hurting on that day because… it was like two impacts from behind. The first impact let me forward and the other one to as well.”[17]

  1. –He conceded he was not looking behind and did not see the two vehicles behind him colliding.
  1. –It was put to him that he could not say whether or not the Toyota Ute collided with the X-TRAIL before it collided with his vehicle, and he responded:

“I didn’t see which one collided first but there was two impacts.”[18]

  1. –He said that the second bump was softer:

“From the first bump because the first bump was so heavy I couldn’t feel much difference but the second bump was like I can say, quite lighter from the first one.”[19]

  1. –There was maybe less that a second between the two bumps.
  1. –He was asked if he heard any impact between other vehicles before the first bump to his vehicle and he said, “I don’t think so.”[20]It was put to him that there was only one impact at the back of his vehicle, and he rejected that assertion saying:

“No because I can feel the second like bump because it also let me go like you know feel the second time on my neck. It was clearly two impacts.”[21]

EVIDENCE – MR TONY BIELBY

  1. [50]
    Mr Bielby gave evidence that:
  1. –He was shown photographs depicting the three vehicles involved in the incident including his Toyota LandCruiser.
  1. –He confirmed the order the vehicles were travelling in was the i30 in front of the XTRAIL, and then his LandCruiser.
  1. –In describing the incident from his involvement, he said:

“So, the details are very blurry because of how long ago it was. All that I can remember is hearing noises, trying to swerve and hit the brake, and then everything sort of went from there, it all just happened really fast.”[22]

  1. –He conceded his vehicle collided with the rear of the silver XTRAIL.
  1. –He said he remembered hearing tyres screeching before his collision with that vehicle.
  1. –In respect of the collision between his vehicle and the XTRAIL, he described the impact as:

“So the very right side of the XTRAIL and then the winch in the bottom of the bull bar rail.”

  1. –He was shown photographs (Exhibit 3) in respect of the damage to the rear of the XTRAIL and the front of his motor vehicle. He identified from the photographs only minor damage to the left-hand rear of the XTRAIL with imprints of his bull bar. In respect of the impact as between his vehicle and the XTRAIL, he said, “very light, it wasn’t a huge impact at all.”[23]
  1. –He said further, “I didn’t feel anything with it, so as I’ve hit the brakes and swerved I actually didn’t realise that I’d hit the back of the vehicle until we jumped out and had a look at everything that was going on.”[24]
  1. [51]
    Mr Bielby was cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel and his evidence was:
  1. –He did not realise he had hit the back of the vehicle in front of them until he got out of the car.
  1. –It was put to him that he in fact was aware that he had hit the XTRAIL which he denied.
  1. –It was put to him that he had given a version of his speed before the collision at 70km/hr, and he said that was the speed he was generally travelling along the section of roadway at.[25]
  1. –He conceded he did not know whether the vehicle in front of him had hit the car in front of it.[26]
  1. –It was put to him that in a statement he said he could not remember the noise of skidding before the impact.
  1. –He accepted he did not see any skid marks on the roadway following the collision. He rejected that there was a hard hit between his vehicle and the vehicle in front.[27]
  1. –It was put to him, “I suggest that after your vehicle made contact with the vehicle in front of you it then shunted forward into the car in front of it, that’s right – no it’s not.”[28]

EVIDENCE – KRISTY MARIE SMITH

  1. [52]
    The defendant gave evidence herself. In her evidence she said:
  1. –When asked if there were vehicles in front of her, “yes there was some cars that were braking so I was in the process of braking as well.”[29]She was shown the photographs of the damage to the vehicles (Exhibit Three). She said that the vehicle behind her (the Toyota Ute) hit her from behind.
  1. –She described the accident in these terms:

“So I was in the process of braking because the cars in front of me had broke. I had almost come to a complete stop when I was hit from behind by that car.”[30]

  1. –She said she was about a metre away from the vehicle in front of her.[31] She said, “when I was hit from behind I ended up getting pushed into the car in front of me and hit the car.”[32]
  1. –In describing the impact she said, “it was quite hard, yeah I got hit from behind and I got pushed forward and got pushed into the car in front of me.”[33]
  1. –In respect of the question “how many times did your vehicle impact the car in front of yours?” She replied – “only once.”[34]
  1. [53]
    The defendant was cross-examined by the plaintiff’s counsel and her evidence was:
  1. –It was suggested that immediately prior to the collision she was driving quite quickly and immediately behind the while Hyundai which she rejected.
  1. –She was taken to photographs of the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle (Exhibit 3). She accepted that there was more substantial damage to the front of her vehicle than to the rear.[35]
  1. –She rejected that the impact to the rear of her vehicle was light. It was put to her that her vehicle collided with the rear of the Hyundai i30 before the LandCruiser collided with her car and she rejected that.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. [54]
    The evidence of each of the three witnesses called at trial was relatively brief. They all gave their evidence some two-and-a-half years following the incident which occurred on 21 March 2022.
  1. [55]
    It is uncontroversial on the evidence, and I find on the balance of probabilities:
  1. –The plaintiff’s motor vehicle was stationary on the road.
  1. –The defendant’s motor vehicle collided with the rear of the plaintiff’s motor vehicle.
  1. –The third-party’s motor vehicle collided with the rear of the defendant’s motor vehicle.
  1. [56]
    The competing versions contended for by the plaintiff and defendant respectively are:
  1. –The plaintiff asserts that when its motor vehicle was stationary on the roadway, the defendant collided with the rear of it with quite a significant impact and that subsequently the third-party motor vehicle collided with the rear of the defendant’s motor vehicle causing it to push the plaintiff’s motor vehicle forward and into the rear of the vehicle in front of it.
  1. –The defendant asserts that the plaintiff’s motor vehicle came to a stop and was stationary.
  1. –The defendant’s motor vehicle came to a stop and was stationary behind it (about a metre behind).
  1. –The third-party’s motor vehicle collided with the rear of the defendant’s motor vehicle and pushed it forward colliding with the rear of the plaintiff’s motor vehicle.
  1. [57]
    The plaintiff’s version is that there were two impacts, the defendant’s version is that there was only one impact.
  1. [58]
    Mr Mehra was in my view an impressive witness, he gave evidence in a direct and straightforward manner. He was adamant that his vehicle was stationary (that is accepted by the defendant) and that he felt an impact from behind which was a heavier impact and then a subsequent lighter impact – the second impact. He said that the second impact did cause his vehicle to move further forward and collide with the rear of the vehicle in front of him. In cross-examination it was put forcefully to him that there was only one impact and that he was mistaken, and he flatly rejected that. He gave quite specific reasons for remembering the two impacts and that the first impact was more significant because of pain to his neck.
  1. [59]
    I accept that the Mr Mehra gave a truthful, reliable, and accurate account of the circumstances of the collision.
  1. [60]
    Mr Bielby (called as part of the plaintiff’s case) I would describe as a ‘transparently honest’ witness. He made appropriate concessions noting that the incident was a long time ago and he was quite blurry and that he could not recall the details of the statement he had given, albeit prepared by his girlfriend and signed by him.
  1. [61]
    His evidence was that the XTRAIL in front of him came to a very sudden stop, he braked and swerved to the left and the impact at collision was only light and caused little damage. He said he in fact was not sure that he had even collided with that vehicle until he alighted from his vehicle.
  1. [62]
    His evidence is entirely consistent with the evidence of Mr Mehra that there was a first significant impact to the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle, with the impact caused by the collision of the defendant’s motor vehicle, and that his vehicle then more lightly collided with the rear of the defendant’s vehicle.
  1. [63]
    I find the version given by Mr Bielby, also not shaken under cross-examination, to be a truthful, reliable, and accurate account of the incident.
  1. [64]
    The defendant was in my view a less impressive witness. She contended that there was only one impact and that the impact with the collision of Mr Bielby’s vehicle to her vehicle was significant, although she conceded that the damage caused and depicted in the photographs was more substantial to the front of her vehicle than the rear of her vehicle.
  1. [65]
    I prefer the evidence on Mr Mehra and Mr Bielby to the defendant’s evidence.
  1. [66]
    I find I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities after consideration of the evidence that:
  1. –The plaintiff was stationary on the roadway in a line of traffic.
  1. –The defendant collided with the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle and that the impact was substantial.
  1. –That following that first impact by the defendant colliding with the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle, the third-party who was following the defendant’s vehicle was unable to brake or swerve to avoid a collision and collided with the rear of the defendant’s vehicle but that that collision was of a much lesser impact.
  1. [67]
    Upon the basis of those findings on the evidence I am satisfied that the defendant was negligent and caused the collision by:
  1. –Failing to maintain a safe distance from the plaintiff’s vehicle.
  1. –Failing to properly manage or control her vehicle.
  1. –Failing to keep any proper lookout whilst driving her vehicle.
  1. –Failing to apply the brakes in time to avoid colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
  1. –Failing to exercise reasonable skill and care in driving her vehicle.
  1. –Failing to stop, slow down, swerve, or otherwise manoeuvre her vehicle so as to avoid colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
  1. [68]
    In respect of the third-party Mr Bielby’s conduct in driving his vehicle, in the emergency circumstances which confronted him where the defendant had collided heavily with the plaintiff’s vehicle in front of her, I do not find that he is in those circumstances negligent and that he has not caused or contributed to the collision.

DISPOSITION

  1. [69]
    I find that the defendant is wholly liable in negligence for the collision and liable for the plaintiff’s loss and damage.
  1. [70]
    I give judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $10,858.56.
  1. [71]
    The defendant’s third-party proceedings claiming both indemnity and contribution from the third-party and damage for the defendant’s loss and damage are dismissed.

DIRECTIONS 

  1. [72]
    In respect of a claim for interest and costs I direct the parties file and serve written submissions to be no more than five typed A4 pages as follows:
  1. 1)
    The plaintiff within 14 days
  1. 2)
    The defendant within 28 days.

Magistrate J N L Pinder

17/02/25

Footnotes

[1]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–2 [30]–[45], 1–3 [35].

[2]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–4 [25].

[3]Affidavit of Service, 9 November 2023 filed by leave 6 August 2024.

[4]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 137(1).

[5]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 194(1)(b)(ii).

[6]Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 48.

[7]Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd [2000] QSC 163.

[8]Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd [2000] QSC 163 at [16].

[9]Defence [2].

[10]Defence [4](a)

[11]Statement of Claim [5].

[12]Defence [4](a).

[13]Defence [4](f).

[14]Defence [7].

[15]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–20 [25].

[16]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024)  1–21 [15].

[17]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–23 [30].

[18]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–24 [1].

[19]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–25 [1].

[20]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–26 [1].

[21]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–26 [5].

[22]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–30 [5].

[23]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–33 [15].

[24]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–33 [20].

[25]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–35 [40].

[26]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–36 [20].

[27]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–37 [30].

[28]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–37 [35].

[29]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–40 [45].

[30]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–42 [1].

[31]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–42 [10].

[32]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–42 [20].

[33]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–42 [25].

[34]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024) 1–42 [35].

[35]Transcript of Proceedings, Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Bielby (Magistrates Court of Queensland, Pinder J, 6 August 2024)  1–44 [5].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Rideshare Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith

  • MNC:

    [2025] QMC 4

  • Court:

    QMC

  • Judge(s):

    Pinder

  • Date:

    17 Feb 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Just GI Pty Ltd v Nomoheith Pty Ltd [2000] QSC 163
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] QSC 163
Cite 2 - [2000] QSC 163
Just GI Pty Ltd v Pig Improvement Company Australia Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 48
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QCA 48
Cite 2 - [2001] QCA 48

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.