The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for leave to appeal filed by Pritishna Lata Bhan, the owner of a vehicle involved in a 2008 accident that left passenger Gabriel Singh seriously injured.
The ruling, delivered on 30 October by Justices Brian Keith, Terence Arnold and Alipate Qetaki, leaves intact earlier findings by the High Court and the Court of Appeal that Bhan was vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver, Nitin Ronresh Mishra.
Justice Arnold, delivering the Court’s primary judgment, said the petition raised no issue of public importance or far-reaching law that would justify the Supreme Court’s intervention.
“Car owners often allow other people to drive their cars. Sometimes, a driver who is driving a car with the owner’s permission has an accident. Occasionally, the accident is the result of the driver’s negligence,” said Justice Arnold.
While the negligent driver may well be personally liable for any property damage or personal injuries caused by their negligence, they may not have the financial capacity to make good any claims.”
“So the question will arise whether the owner has any liability for the driver’s actions, as that may give rise to a claim under the owner’s third-party liability insurance. This requires consideration of the circumstances in which a car owner will be vicariously liable for losses caused by the negligence of a driver who has the owner’s permission to drive the car at the time of the accident.”
The accident occurred on 7 September 2008, when Mishra lost control of Bhan’s car during an overtaking manoeuvre. Singh, a passenger at the time, suffered major injuries. The High Court found both the driver and Bhan jointly and severally liable for more than $472,000 in damages, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Bhan sought Supreme Court permission to challenge both the finding of vicarious liability and the amount of damages awarded.
A central issue was whether Mishra was driving with Bhan’s authority.
Police statements taken from both Bhan and Mishra shortly after the accident indicated that Bhan had willingly handed Mishra the car keys because he knew the area well.
But at the 2020 trial, both changed their story, claiming Mishra took the wheel without permission.
Justice Arnold said the trial judge was entitled to reject their revised account.
“The evidence was so similar to each other, and yet so different from what they had both told the police,” he noted.
“The Judge was entitled to conclude that they had deliberately put their heads together to concoct a scenario which might absolve the owner from liability.”
Bhan also attempted to dispute aspects of the damages award, including costs related to an unsuccessful medical trip to New Zealand. The Supreme Court ruled these were factual matters already fully considered by the High Court and Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court unanimously refused Bhan’s application for leave to appeal and ordered her to pay $10,000 in costs to Singh.
“This petition never had any prospect of succeeding,” Justice Arnold said.
