The claimant was injured when struck by a car in Spain, driven by an uninsured driver. He claimed here against the MIB. The 2003 Regulations under which he claimed had not been updated for the 2007 EU Regulations. The parties disputed which law would apply to assessment of damages.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Regulations provide for English law to govern the measure of recovery, and there was nothing in the Sixth Directive to the contrary.
Moore-Bick LJ concluded first that regulation 13 must contemplate the victim being able to show the existence of liability on the part of the person responsible for the accident. The answer on this point lay, he considered, in the words ‘shall compensate the injured party in accordance with the provisions of article 1’ of the Second Directive. He went on: ‘I think it is reasonably clear from the recitals to the Second Directive that its purpose was to assimilate the position of the victim of an unidentified or uninsured driver or vehicle to that of the victim of an identified and insured driver or vehicle; it is not its purpose to require the establishment of a system of no-fault compensation. It is, therefore, implicit in the scheme of the Second Directive that the victim must be able to establish that the driver is liable to him in respect of his injuries, but whether that requires proof of fault will depend on the law of the country in which the accident occurred. The reference in regulation 13(1)(c)(ii) to an insurance undertaking which insures the use of the vehicle assumes the existence of a liability on the part of the driver which ought to be, but is not, covered by insurance. It follows, in my view, that the obligation imposed on the bureau by regulation 13(2)(b) to compensate the injured party in accordance with the provisions of article 1 of the Second Directive carries with it the implicit proviso that the injured party must be able to show that the driver is liable to him. As in the case of a claim under regulation 12, that is a question to be determined by reference to the applicable law identified in accordance with the appropriate conflicts of laws rules. At the time the 2003 Regulations were made the applicable rules were those of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, but since the introduction of Rome II, the rules set out in that Regulation will apply and will normally lead to the application of the law of the country in which the accident occurred.’
Laws, Moore-Bick, Rimer LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1208,  1 WLR 2609,  1 All ER 844,  1 All ER (Comm) 445,  RTR 2
England and Wales
Appeal from – Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau QBD 16-Feb-2010
The UK claimant was seriously injured in Spain. The negligent car driver was not insured. The parties now disputed which law would apply in assessing the damages payable by the defendant. . .
Overruled – Moreno v The Motor Insurers’ Bureau SC 3-Aug-2016
The claimant had been severely injured when hit by a car in Greece. The car’s driver was uninsured. The Court was now asked whether the scope of her claim to damages was to be determined in accordance with English or Greek law. The implementation of . .
Followed – Bloy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA 29-Nov-2013
Cited – Moreno v The Motor Insurers’ Bureau QBD 17-Apr-2015
The claimant suffered injury in a road traffic accident in Greece. The responsible driver was uninsured. She claimed here under the MIB scheme, and the court was now asked whether Greek or UK law governed the assessment of damages.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Road Traffic, European
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.425585