Whyatt & Ors v Powell & Anor

Whyatt & Ors v Powell & Anor

The judge's findings that the claimants ought to have known the vehicle was uninsured were not supported by evidence of actual or constructive knowledge as required by law. There was no evidence that the claimants had information from which they realised the driver might not be insured and deliberately refrained from asking. The findings amounted at most to carelessness or negligence, which is insufficient to trigger the exception under clause 6(1)(e)(ii) of the MIB Agreement. The costs order must also be set aside as the underlying determination is overturned.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Jamie Whyatt; Claimant/appellant: Gary Rees; Claimant/appellant: Arron Rees; Defendant/respondent: Anthony Powell; Defendant/respondent: Motor Insurers’ Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance, Liability of Motor Insurers’ Bureau, Knowledge of Uninsured Status, Costs Orders, Qualified One Way Costs Shifting
Insurance Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Motor Insurance Liability of Motor Insurers’ Bureau Knowledge of Uninsured Status Costs Orders Qualified One Way Costs Shifting

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamie Whyatt

Claimant/appellant

Gary Rees

Claimant/appellant

Arron Rees

Claimant/appellant

Anthony Powell

Defendant/respondent

Motor Insurers’ Bureau

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Preliminary Issue Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants ought to have known the vehicle was uninsured under clause 6(1)(e)(ii) of the MIB Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's findings were supported by evidence and correct in law
  3. 3 Whether the costs order was properly made

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's findings that the claimants ought to have known the vehicle was uninsured were not supported by evidence of actual or constructive knowledge as required by law. There was no evidence that the claimants had information from which they realised the driver might not be insured and deliberately refrained from asking. The findings amounted at most to carelessness or negligence, which is insufficient to trigger the exception under clause 6(1)(e)(ii) of the MIB Agreement. The costs order must also be set aside as the underlying determination is overturned.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The determination that each claimant ought to have known the vehicle was uninsured is set aside.
  • The issue is remitted to the county court for re-hearing and re-determination.