A woman whose partner died in a motorcycle accident more than 20 years ago can pursue the bike owner’s compulsory third party insurer for compensation, a court has ruled.

QBE sought dismissal of the proceedings in the NSW District Court because the claim was filed after a December 2008 expiry date under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act.

Fraser Revell died in December 2005 when riding a borrowed motorcycle, leaving de facto spouse Tracey Collins and two dependent children, then aged 10 and 17.

Ms Collins alleged the bike’s owner breached a duty of care by allowing Mr Revell, 37, to ride despite knowing he was unlicensed, inexperienced and intoxicated.

She sought to proceed against QBE because the motorcycle owner was a company, deregistered in December 2009.

Acting Judge Mark Levy says Ms Collins had comfortable living circumstances before Mr Revell’s death but suffered a decline afterwards and “her existence became chaotic”.

In 2007, when consulting criminal lawyers, she was told she was not eligible for compensation from the accident, and in 2014 she was told any claim was unlikely to be successful.

She had lodged a claim in 2013, when liability was denied on the basis of an inadequate explanation for the delay and because the insurer denied the bike owner was at fault.

By 2022, Ms Collins’ circumstances were improving and in 2024 she lodged a claim again, which was also denied.

Last year, she sought leave to join QBE to the action under the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act, and for leave to pursue her claim out of time under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act.

The parties agreed the relevant damages under the MAC Act totalled $89,750.

Judge Levy accepts Ms Collins believed in 2014 that she could not proceed, she feared being hit with the insurer’s costs, and she was suffering depression.

In allowing her case, he says a trauma-informed approach is needed. She was confused for a significant period, did not realise she could have asked for leave earlier, and had not been fully informed of the prospects of her claim.

He says Ms Collins has an arguable case and her explanations for the delay are “full and satisfactory”, as required under the MAC Act.

Read the judgement here.