DLZ v Transport Accident Commission: Case Analysis & Legal Aspects

This case study provides an analysis of DLZ (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN ISKRA NIKOLOVSKI) v TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION [2017] VSCA 134. It outlines the facts of the case, involving a 12-year-old boy with catastrophic injuries from a motorcycle accident and his family's claim for increased accommodation expenses. The study identifies the relevant statute, the Transport Accident Act (TAC), and focuses on provisions related to compensation for medical, disability, and rehabilitation services. It examines the court's interpretation of these provisions and its conclusion, which denied additional accommodation expenses. The analysis concludes with a critique of the court's approach, suggesting that it may not have adequately considered the sufferer's needs, while also acknowledging the limitations of the law. The document provides references for further research and study.

CASE ANALYSIS OF
DLZ (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN ISKRA
NIKOLOVSKI) v TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION
[2017] VSCA 134
Brief outline of the facts:
 In this case scenario there was a boy aged 12 years old who was involved in an accident which
was being a rise through the passenger riding on motorcycle and has suffered a major catastrophic
injuries due to which he is on ventilator dependent and is also being given food and other feeding
through machines. His all the four limbs were being paralysed and was made it unable to make general
voluntary movement. He was neither being able to manage any control in the bodily functions from the
time the accident was being occurred. His mother rented an accommodation in order to keep the care of
his child and due to all such major issues and injuries DLZ were being endorsed to gain more substantial
accommodation in order to accommodate them self, a care and also to gain the equipment for the
survival. The mother of the boy was willing to gain the larger premises and all the extra amounts to
meet the expenses and the necessary requirements of her children1. On May 1, 2015 there was being
made a request on the General behalf of applicant to manage the cost of renting and also to contribute
for the necessary support of the applicant. All such claim there by paying amounted to be measured with
the difference in the cost in the property and also for the residents which is being made by the applicant
before their accident. All such claim was being made by them through the rehabitation services,
disability services and all the medical services which they are claiming to pursue due to the miss
happening.
The statute in question:
 Transport accident act (TAC) is being introduced through the motor accident boards by the state
of Victoria, Australia in 1986. The main purpose of this act is to provide funds to all the people who are
being injured in order to make an appropriate treatment and also to support the services to all such
individuals who have been injured in the accident. They generally cover all the non-medical Aunty
medical expenses incurred during the time of accident2. All the major funding provided by TAC in order
to perform the functions are generally being claimed through the compulsory payment which is to be
given by the Victorian motorist who are being registered with their vehicles every year in Victorian
1 Akuh, Raymond and Charles Atombo, "
2 Road Transport Accident Analysis From A System-Based Accident Analysis Approach Using Swiss Cheese
Model" (2019) 1(2) International Journal of Engineering Education

Road. Their main duty and aim behind this are to reduce all such accidents and also to provide the
responsibility regarding the road safety in the country.
The provision in focus:
 The main provisions which are being undertaken through this act is it section 60(2)(a) provides that
commission will be held liable in order to pay the compensation to all the persons who are being injured
or died with the transport accident and will have to provide all the medical services, rescue services,
hospital charges, disability, nursing and all the rehabitation, transportation services including the
ambulance services which are being given in Australia for accident cases.
 Other than this section 60(4) and (7) provides that any of the person who has suffered a major injury
will reasonably gain and acquire to be given a home where he or she will decide in Australia and the
commission will be held liable to pay all the reasonable cost that is being required for the modification
of the home along with the contribution to be made in case where the reasonably modified cannot be
made possible in their home3. They will also have to purchase the semi detachable portable and also to
give the relocating cost to the person for all such working and management of the injury. The
Commonwealth legislation will also referred that the person will have to provide cheap food, household
in all the personal items which is being required for essential utility.
Identification, explanation and application of interpretive criteria by the Court to
the construction of the provision in focus, including Court’s conclusion:
 The major identification and the interpretive criteria given by the court for the construction of this
provision is to provide adequate safety to all the sufferers who are being affected by the accidents and
also to reduce the cost by the Victorian committee in order to manage the general compensation and the
medical services which will take higher cost of living. But in this case they constitutes that also to claim
payments and the major things which are being required for the treatment of the patient will not being
operated in the open air and that will require extra space so this will not be possible to be managed.
“Concludes that day or not in that position to manage all such liabilities.
Final Orders:
 Supreme Court in the judgement held that all such to areas can make a bad law for the heart cases as
there will be seen the highlights in the deficiencies in law. Although the plaintive has no fault of his own
for being disabled but the court will not be able to provide additional accommodation and expenses
which is being necessary in the purpose for the equipment and also the care. As the appeal which is
being raised for the equipment’s cannot be operated out in the open air and also provisions will require
the care, storage and maintenance with the necessary supplies that will need the extra spaces in the
house and the court is not in a position to actively dispute all such liabilities in order to make the
payment but can only provide a clarification for the power to manage the payments with DLZ and the
status as according to respondent of appeal.
3 Cockfield, Samantha, Road Safety (OECD Publishing, 2011)

Your conclusion as to the correctness of the court’s approach:
 As by analysing this case scenario there can be seen that the court has not use their appropriate power in
order to provide the cost of living to the sufferer. There is being seen that they were also felt the same as
by saying that they were not in the essential position to manage the dispute of making the payment.
DLZ although being in a condition to require and manage to suffer their personal injury still the jury
was not being in an adequate circumstance and emphasise on suitable and just rather than following the
law and order.
REFERENCES