Decision
Antoniou v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 428
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
The Claimant is riding his motorcycle in the lane closest to the median strip. His lane, however, is coming to an end, so he has to merge to the lane to his left. The Claimant accelerates to a speed exceeding the speed limit in order to overtake a taxi. He proceeds to change lanes before braking in the taxi’s path, causing a collision.
Is the Claimant wholly or mostly at fault?
In Antoniou v Allianz, a PIC Member found that both drivers departed from the required standard of care. The Member concluded, however, that the Claimant’s relative culpability exceeded that of the Insured and assessed the Claimant’s contributory negligence at 80%.
Principles
✅ A Claimant is not entitled to ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks if their contribution to the cause of the accident exceeds 61%.
✅ In most-at-fault disputes, the only issue is whether the Claimant’s contributory negligence exceeds 61%.
✅ In multi-vehicle accidents, the Claimant’s contributory negligence is assessed by reference to the relative culpability of each vehicle involved in the accident.
Facts
On 24 May 2025, the Claimant was riding his motorcycle on Flinders Street near the intersection of Oxford Street in Surry Hills when he was involved in a motor accident with a taxi.
The Claimant was riding his motorcycle in the lane closest to the median strip and the Insured taxi was travelling in the lane to his left.
Importantly, the Claimant’s lane was coming to an end and it follows that he had to merge into the Insured taxi’s lane at some point in the immediate future
Dashcam footage from the Insured taxi demonstrated that it was travelling at 53 to 55 kph when the Claimant overtook the vehicle on its right, whilst still in the lane closest to the median strip.
As his lane ended, the Claimant pulled in front of the Insured taxi and braked.
The Insurer denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits on the grounds that the Claimant was wholly at fault for the accident. That decision was affirmed on Internal Review and the Claimant lodged a Miscellaneous Assessment in the Commission.
Member’s Decision
The Member found that the Claimant departed from the standard of care expected of him for the following reasons:
🟪 When faced with a lane which was ending, a reasonable person in the Claimant’s position would not accelerate in an attempt to overtake a vehicle travelling in the lane into which they wanted to merge. A reasonable person would fall back and merge behind the other vehicle.
🟪 Given that the speed limit was 50 kph and the Insured taxi was travelling at 53 to 55 kph, the Claimant had to breach the speed limit in order to overtake the Insured taxi.
🟪 There was insufficient room for the Claimant to brake safely after overtaking the Insured taxi and merging into its lane.
The Member proceeded to assess the Insured driver’s standard of driving and found a departure from the required standard for the following reasons:
🟪 The Insured should have been aware of the Claimant’s presence given that the vehicles had been travelling side by side for a period and the Claimant’s motorcycle would have been visible in the Insured taxi’s mirrors.
🟪 The Insured should have anticipated that the Claimant might increase his speed and try to overtake his vehicle.
🟪 Had the Insured noticed the Claimant riding his motorbike past his taxi, he would have had more time to react earlier than he did.
Whilst both parties were partially at fault, the Member concluded that the Claimant’s relative culpability outweighed the Insured’s relative culpability.
On that basis, the Member found that the Claimant was 80% responsible for the accident and, therefore, most at fault.
My Perspective
The decision in Antoniou represents another application of the Supreme Court’s decision in AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic [2024] NSWSC 1272.
The Member applied the following process:
🟪 Start from the premise that the only issue is whether the Claimant’s contributory negligence exceeds 61%.
🟪 First, assess whether the Claimant’s driving behaviour departed from the required standard. (If there is no departure, that is the end of the matter.)
🟪 Second, once a finding had been made that the Claimant departed from the required standard, assess whether the Insured’s driving behaviour departed from the required standard.
🟪 Third, once a finding was made that both parties were at fault, place a percentage on each party’s relative culpability.
Based on her factual findings, the Member found that the Claimant was 80% responsible and, therefore, most at fault.
PJH