RoadPeace challenged certain legislation, as to compulsory insurance for motor vehicles, and for payment of compensation for personal injury and damages caused by uninsured driver, saying that it failed properly to implement European law. Held: Ouseley J recorded and accepted the view of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau that … Continue reading RoadPeace v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 7 Nov 2017
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. The insurers now appealed against Held: The appeal succeeded. It is … Continue reading Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd: SC 20 Feb 2019
Crossing road after breakdown for petrol within scope of arising from use of car. Citations: Times 11-Mar-1996 Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 145 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Negligence Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80180
Regulations properly excluded requirement for compulsory insurance for driver. Citations: Times 03-Jun-1996 Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 145(4A) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Road Traffic Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87970
Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and unhelpful. Whether any particular area was a road is a question of fact in … Continue reading Clarke v Kato and Others; Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd: HL 25 Nov 1998
The claimant had been severely injured in a car crash when his younger brother was driving. The driver did not have the owner’s permission to drive, and the insurer sought to avoid laibility. Held: ‘insurers do not have to prove that the injured passenger actually believed that the vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken. … Continue reading McMminn v McMinn and Another: QBD 11 Apr 2006
The court considered the arrangement for interim payments of damages awards where the claim was to be made through the Bureau. The agreement between the Bureau and the insurer members predated and did not allow for such payments. Held: The MIB, seeking clarification, had made no interim payment. They could have made a substantial part … Continue reading Sharp By her Next Friend Sharp v Pereira and Motor Insurers’ Bureau: CA 24 Jun 1998
The victim of an unlawful act of a driver off-road sought damages from another driver and his insurers. The insurers refused to pay. Held: There is a balance to be found between the statutory purpose of compulsory motor insurance and the principal that a man should not benefit from his own wrongful act. The victim … Continue reading Churchill Insurance v Charlton: CA 2 Feb 2001
The court was asked as to the liability of the Motor Insurer’s Bureau for an accident not occurring on a public road. Held: Soole J said that section 145 should not be read down, because reading down would go against the grain and thrust of the legislation, because it raised policy ramifications which were not … Continue reading Lewis v Tindale and Others: QBD 14 Sep 2018
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and claimed an indemnity from the driver. His motor policy covered him, as required in respect … Continue reading R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd: SC 27 Mar 2019
 EWHC 1451 (Admin) Bailii Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a) England and Wales Road Traffic Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.185344
The defendant had been convicted of drugs offences, and sentenced under the 1994 Act. The gains he had made exceeded his then assets. Later he acquired further property honestly, and the Court now considered whether those assets could be taken to cover the earlier shortfall, by allowing for them when issuing a certificate to increase … Continue reading Peacock, Re: SC 22 Feb 2012
Passengers were injured in motor vehicles. The drivers were uninsured, and the MIB had declined to make payment. The doctrine of direct effect did not apply where the allegation was that the Motor Insurers Bureau arrangement did not comply with a . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing death by dangerous driving and failing to provide a specimen of breath. . .