The District Court of NSW has prevented a plaintiff from bringing a common law claim against a bus operator for an incident which occurred when the bus doors closed on the plaintiff while they were boarding the bus, ruling that the cause of action is governed by the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW).
The background
The plaintiff, Adam Hoptman, alleged that he was injured on two occasions, being 8 July 2022 and 12 October 2022, while boarding buses operated by the first and second defendants. On both occasions, the bus doors closed on the plaintiff, causing injuries. The second defendant, The Entrance Red Bus Services Pty Ltd, was responsible for the bus involved in the later incident.
By way of an Amended Statement of Claim filed in 2023, the plaintiff alleged negligence against the second defendant pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (the CLA).
On 23 February 2026, the second defendant filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders dismissing the proceedings against it, or in the alternative, striking out the amended pleading. The second defendant argued that the incident constituted a motor accident as governed by the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (the MAI Act), which required the plaintiff to comply with certain pre-filing requirements, including obtaining a certificate from the Personal Injury Commission.
In issue
- It was common ground that the plaintiff had not satisfied the pre-filing requirements under the MAI Act.
- The primary issue was whether the injury suffered by the plaintiff on the second occasion was a result of the 'driving' of the bus, as defined by section 1.9 of the MAI Act. If the injury was deemed to result from the driving of the bus, the claim would fall under the MAI Act. The plaintiff argued that the injury was not a result of the driving of the bus, but rather the act of the driver pressing a button to close the doors while the vehicle was stationary, and on that basis the MAI Act did not apply.
The decision
The Court found in favour of the second defendant and dismissed the proceedings against it, concluding that the act of opening and closing the doors of a public transport bus, even when stationary, was an essential part of the driving of a vehicle. The Court distinguished a public transport bus, which has the sole purpose of transporting passengers, from other vehicles such as forklifts and front-end loaders where a 'bright line' can be drawn between their loading and locomotion functions. The Court also had regard to similar decisions such as the case of QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Smith [2005] NSWCA 130, in which it was held that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the driving of a vehicle, even though the vehicle was completely stopped at the time.
As the injury suffered by the plaintiff was determined to be a result of the driving of the bus, which was being driven for its sole purpose of transporting passengers, the plaintiff’s claim was held to be governed by the MAI Act. The plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pre-filing requirements required by section 6.31 of the MAI Act meant that he was not entitled to commence court proceedings against the second defendant. The proceedings against the second defendant were dismissed.
Implications for you
This decision underscores the importance of considering the way in which a claim is pleaded. If the applicable legislative framework and its associated time limits and pre-filing requirements are not complied with, it may constitute a bar to the action.
Hoptman v The Entrance Red Bus Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWDC 165
