Carswell v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

Carswell v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

The 2003 Agreement is a compliant and proportionate implementation of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive. The scheme’s inquisitorial nature, the role of the MIB, and the fixed scale costs regime do not breach the principles of equivalence or effectiveness. There is an effective means of enforcing the MIB’s obligations, and no systemic failure has been shown. Even if there were a breach, it would not be sufficiently serious to warrant Francovich damages. The Claimant’s claim for damages is therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Arlene Carswell (The Personal Representative Of James Carswell Deceased); First Defendant: The Secretary Of State For Transport; Second Defendant: The Motor Insurers’ Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Implementation of EU Directives, Compensation for Victims of Untraced Drivers, State Liability for Failure to Implement Directives, Legal Costs in Compensation Schemes
European Union Law Insurance Law Personal Injury Implementation of EU Directives Compensation for Victims of Untraced Drivers State Liability for Failure to Implement Directives Legal Costs in Compensation Schemes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arlene Carswell (The Personal Representative Of James Carswell Deceased)

Claimant

The Secretary Of State For Transport

First Defendant

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2003 Agreement between the Secretary of State and the MIB properly implements Article 1(4) of EEC Council Directive 84/5/EEC (the Second Directive)
  2. 2 Whether the scheme breaches the principles of equivalence and effectiveness under EU law
  3. 3 Whether the costs provisions under the 2003 Agreement are compliant with EU law

Ratio Decidendi

The 2003 Agreement is a compliant and proportionate implementation of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive. The scheme’s inquisitorial nature, the role of the MIB, and the fixed scale costs regime do not breach the principles of equivalence or effectiveness. There is an effective means of enforcing the MIB’s obligations, and no systemic failure has been shown. Even if there were a breach, it would not be sufficiently serious to warrant Francovich damages. The Claimant’s claim for damages is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed