Legal action launched against Slater & Gordon for failing to conduct a ‘full and proper investigation’

An injured cyclist has taken his case to the Supreme Court in a dramatic escalation of the Daniel and Catherine Andrews car crash dispute.

Lawyers for cyclist Ryan Meuleman have launched a Supreme Court damages claim in a dramatic escalation of the Daniel and Catherine Andrews car crash dispute.

The Herald Sun can reveal Ryan’s legal team are suing major law firm Slater & Gordon for failing to conduct “a full and proper investigation into the circumstances” of the near-fatal 2013 Blairgowrie smash.

The Premier and his wife, as well as their children, could be called to give evidence if the case proceeds to court.

In a statement of claim lodged on Thursday, Slater & Gordon, a Labor-aligned practice, is accused of failing to act in the best interests of the then-teenage bike rider and breaching its duty of care and obligations to him when negotiating his $80,000 Transport Accident Commission compensation payout.

Daniel Andrews and his wife Catherine could be called to give evidence if the case proceeds to court. Picture: David Geraghty

“Had he (Ryan) been properly advised and had the claim been prepared with due, skill and diligence he could have obtained judgement and/or settlement substantially exceeding the settlement amount,” the claim says.

“The defendant (Slater & Gordon) knew or ought to have known that … the plaintiff (Ryan) suffered injuries by reason of the negligence of the driver of the car which struck his bike in the accident.”

The document also accuses Slater & Gordon of failing “to properly or at all investigate, evaluate and assess” the accident, including “possible conflicts” between sworn statements made by Mr and Mrs Andrews, Ryan’s version of events and notes taken by a triple-0 operator during the Premier’s emergency phone call from the Blairgowrie scene.

Lawyers for cyclist Ryan Meuleman have launched a Supreme Court damages claim. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

It references a Victoria Police running sheet which states that a triple-0 operator who spoke to Mr Andrews moments after the 2013 collision told officers: “My caller was one who hit PT (patient) … Says PT is around 14. Is CO (complaining of) pain but caller unsure of inj (injury) as has had to walk away to call amb (ambulance)”.

Ryan’s barrister Daryl Dealehr told the Herald Sun: “The exact words on the notes made by the triple-0 operator at the time of the call are; ‘My caller (Andrews) was one who hit PT (Ryan)’.

“Yet weeks later, Andrews tells police a very different story. His exact words were … ‘I want to make it clear – the cyclist hit our vehicle’. Both versions cannot be true.”

The statement of claim also alleges that Slater & Gordon failed to “identify the correct defendant(s) in the claim”.

The Premier and his wife have always claimed that Catherine was driving the car and that “the cyclist hit our car”.

But Mr Dealehr said the triple-0 note “could suggest Mr Andrews, and not his wife, was the driver of the car at the time of the accident”.

Victoria Police “Traffic Incident System” notes taken four days after the crash, also referenced in the court claim, reveal Ryan’s father Peter “stated that he did his own door knock and S/T (spoke to) a male who stated he heard the vehicle speed around the corner and bowl over his son”.

Ryan Meuleman in hospital after the near-fatal crash.

Legal sources have told the Herald Sun that witnesses who could be called if the matter proceeds to court are likely to include Mr and Mrs Andrews, their now adult and teenage children, police at the scene that day, the triple-0 operator who received the call from Mr Andrews as well as any witnesses who may have information relevant to the case.

Mr Dealehr said he had been assured that “under normal circumstances, this triple-0 recording will still exist, which is fortunate given its importance in this matter”.

“It is important that Slater & Gordon confirms it asked to hear the audio recording on this triple-0 call which was made by Mr Andrews moments after the crash,” he said.

“There is also no evidence I am aware of to suggest the investigating police ever asked to hear this triple-0 call.”

In April, the Herald Sun revealed a bombshell Ambulance Victoria report which detailed how the Andrews’ Ford Territory “struck” Ryan while “travelling at 40 to 60kmph” in a Blairgowrie back street on January 7, 2013, contradicting the Premier’s claims that their vehicle was “T-boned” by the bike.

Premier Daniel Andrews’ Ford territory car after the crash. Picture: Supplied

The “Patient Care Report” – made by paramedics who attended the crash scene and buried for a decade – was at odds with the ­Andrews’ claims they came to a “complete stop” and “turned right from a stationary ­position” just ­“moments” before the collision.

Ryan has always insisted the ­Andrews’ car was “speeding” and “seemed to come out of nowhere” when he was struck 17m on from the Melbourne Rd and Ridley St intersection in Blairgowrie.

Secret police photographs uncovered by the Herald Sun last November revealed the extent of the damage to the front of the Andrews’ family car and its windscreen, prompting calls from a former Victorian crown prosecutor for a fresh review of the case.

Police also failed to use breathalysers at the scene.

Ryan – now 25 – and his family have condemned Mr Andrews, the then-opposition leader, for leaving the scene after calling triple-0.

Questions over why the damaged vehicle was allowed to be driven away from the crash site have also been raised.

“The car should never have been allowed to leave the scene, for two reasons: one is, it was a very serious incident and needed proper forensic assessment and two, the car was unroadworthy,” former Police Chief Commissioner Kel Glare said in April.

The family have also raised concerns over the TAC compensation process involving Slater & Gordon, during which Ryan said he was warned he could never comment on the incident.

Both of his parents insist they never engaged the law firm.

A Slater and Gordon spokeswoman said the firm had not seen the writ, but “denies the claims reported in the Herald Sun and will defend any proceedings should they be served”.