Previous proceedings brought by a credit hire car provider in
the name of an insured do not necessarily preclude a later
subrogated action.
On 29 July 2015 Wilson SCJ refused leave to AAMI to appeal
against a determination by Magistrate Milledge of the NSW Local
Court in Peters v D'Armas.
Peters had an insured loss for damage to his vehicle and had
also hired a replacement vehicle on credit. The credit hire
provider had commenced and lost proceedings in Peters' name
against AAMI's insured D'Armas. NRMA had also
commenced subrogated proceedings in Peters' name without
knowing about those earlier hire car proceedings.
AAMI sought to strike out the NRMA proceedings on the basis of
estoppel and the operation of S.24 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005
(NSW). Whilst arguably much of the determination turned on
what was described as "the inexplicable failure of AAMI to
refer to the first proceedings during its dealings with the
NRMA", the comments of the Supreme Court
