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 payment allowing the plaintiff’s life to proceed, without prejudicing their argument. There is no reason to distinguish between the two situations: one, where the Motor Insurers’ Bureau will be directly responsible for meeting a claim, and the other where a particular insurer will be responsible under the agreement to meet the claim. The amended wording of the subparagraph is not to be construed in a technical manner. That is underlined by the fact that technically there is no ‘Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement’. The title which is given to the agreement which was made between the Secretary of State and the Bureau is the Uninsured Drivers Agreement.
The Rules Committee made their intent clear in the language they used but they did not express it helpfully. In future it should be read as applying to both situations: (1) where the liability will be met by the Bureau, and, (2), where the liability will be met by an insurance company because that insurance company was originally the insurer in relation to the driver concerned.
Lord Woolf MR, Millett, Pill LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1085,  RTR 125,  PIQR Q129,  1 WLR 195,  4 All ER 145
England and Wales
Cited – Powney v Coxage QBD 8-Mar-1988
The court heard a dispute as to whether, when the Motor Insurers’ Bureau had been joined as a defendant to an action, it was possible to obtain an interim payment under the unamended form of the rules.
Held: It was not possible for such an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Damages
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144564