Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
(1) This Part applies to civil liability of any kind.
(2) This Part does not apply to civil liability that is excluded from the operation of this Part by section 3B or civil liability for defamation.
Note: Section 20 of the Defamation Act 2005 makes similar provision to this Part about the effect of apologies in defamation proceedings.
In this Part:
“apology” means an expression of sympathy or regret, or of a general sense of benevolence or compassion, in connection with any matter whether or not the apology admits or implies an admission of fault in connection with the matter.
(1) An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter alleged to have been caused by the person:
(a) does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter, and
(b) is not relevant to the determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter.
(2) Evidence of an apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter alleged to have been caused by the person is not admissible in any civil proceedings as evidence of the fault or liability of the person in connection with that matter.
Ms Amoud commenced local court proceedings seeking damages from Ms Khowly in relation to a relatively minor multiple car collision in which Ms Khowly pulled out from a parked position into the path of Ms Amoud’s car as it was leaving a roundabout. Ms Khowly denied negligence and counter-claimed against Ms Amoud.
Relevantly to the claims, Ms Khowly had stated to her insurer in relation to the collision that “Immedately [Ms Amoud] admitted fault. Saying ‘I’m so sorry it’s my fault I did not see you’”. Counsel for Ms Ahmoud submitted that evidence of this apology immediately after the accident was not probative of liability in
accordance with s 69 of the Civil Liability Act. The magistrate accepted that s 69 applied to Ms Amoud’s apology and ultimately found that Ms Khowly was exclusively responsible for the accident. Ms Khowly successfully sought leave to appeal, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Local Court for retrial on the question of liability.
On s 69: Ms Khowly conceded that the beginning of the apology by Ms Amoud was affected by s 69, but contended that the statement by Ms Amoud that she had not seen Ms Khowly’s vehicle should have been admitted on the question of liability. The Court accepted that the magistrate should not have disregarded the words “I didn’t see you” when applying s 69: [103].
10 Nov 2024
We acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we work and we pay respect to the Elders, past, present and future.