The luxury convertible, registered as "LAMBO1", was being driven north along the bridge in April, decorated with white ribbons for the wedding.

Police had alleged it and a yellow Ferrari were weaving through traffic at excessive speeds when the Lamborghini lost control and crashed into the barrier separating the road from the footpath.

The crash caused significant damage to the front end of the car, and left it facing oncoming traffic, blocking two lanes and causing delays.

One witness told police the Ferrari and Lamborghini were moving fast and were crossing back and forth between lanes.

He said he could clearly hear the "high-pitched loud engine noise as both accelerated heavily", and believed the two cars may have clipped each other.

But the driver, Youssef Jabal, 30, denied he was driving recklessly. Mr Jabal said the crash occurred when a car in front of him stopped suddenly due to a build-up of traffic.

A number of witnesses at the scene, also involved in the wedding, confirmed his version of events.

Police tried to fine him $289 and impose three demerit points for negligent driving, but Mr Jabal disputed liability and took the matter to court.

He appeared for hearing before Magistrate Peter Dingwall on Monday, represented by barrister James Lawton and lawyer James Maher.

At the end of the prosecution's case, the defence sought a Prasad direction, which requires the magistrate to direct himself that the evidence is insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr Dingwall accepted the defence's application, finding the prosecution had not excluded other innocent causes for the crash, including Mr Jabal's version.

There was no investigation of whether mechanical faults, for example, played a role.

Mr Jabal was acquitted of the charge, and Mr Maher, of Kamy Saeedi Law, later said his client was pleased with the outcome.

"This case illustrates that motor vehicle accidents do not necessarily involve negligence and certainly not criminal negligence warranting sanction," Mr Maher said.

"Our client has always maintained that this was simply an unfortunate accident," he said.

"He challenged the traffic infringement as he is entitled to do and he is pleased with the court's decision today."