The MIB appealed from a judgment making it liable for an award of damages to the estate of the deceased who had been a passenger in a vehicle which he knew to be being driven without insurance. The estate had not sued the MIB directly, but first obtained a judgement against the driver and then taken the matter forward against the MIB.
Held: The judge’s interpretation of the Agreement was correct. The appeal was dismissed
 EWCA Civ 74, Times 21-Feb-2007,  1 WLR 1351,  Lloyd’s Rep IR 413,  3 All ER 382
Second Council Directive (84/5/EEC), Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1
England and Wales
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Cited – White v White and The Motor Insurers Bureau HL 1-Mar-2001
The requirements as to the extent of knowledge in the mind of a passenger sufficient to defeat a claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau, of the driver’s lack of insurance, was actual knowledge. The rules implemented a European Directive which . .
Appeal from – Phillips v Rafiq and Moror Insurer’s Bureau QBD 11-May-2006
The deceased had been a passenger in a car. He had known the driver was not insured. The estate claimed first damages from the first defendant driver, and only then to enforce the judgment against the second defendant.
Held: The MIB was . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 March 2021; Ref: scu.248807