Colley v Shuker & Ors

Colley v Shuker & Ors

The MIB, as an emanation of the State, is liable to compensate the Claimant under Articles 3(1), 10, and 12 of Directive 2009/103/EC where national law fails to guarantee compensation due to section 152(2) RTA 1988; the exclusion in Article 10(2) does not apply as the Claimant knew the driver was uninsured, not the vehicle.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Daniel James Colley; First Defendant: Mr Dylan Shuker; Second Defendant: UK Insurance Limited; Third Defendant: Motor Insurers Bureau; Fourth Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim against MIB succeeds on both preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance Directive, Direct Effect of EU Law, Compulsory Motor Insurance, Francovich Liability, Interpretation of EU Directives, Compensation for Road Traffic Accident Victims
Insurance Law European Union Law Personal Injury Motor Insurance Directive Direct Effect of EU Law Compulsory Motor Insurance Francovich Liability Interpretation of EU Directives +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Daniel James Colley

Claimant

Mr Dylan Shuker

First Defendant

UK Insurance Limited

Second Defendant

Motor Insurers Bureau

Third Defendant

Secretary of State for Transport

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the MIB is liable to compensate the Claimant under Articles 3(1), 10, and 12 of Directive 2009/103/EC
  2. 2 Whether the MIB can rely on the exclusion in Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/103/EC

Ratio Decidendi

The MIB, as an emanation of the State, is liable to compensate the Claimant under Articles 3(1), 10, and 12 of Directive 2009/103/EC where national law fails to guarantee compensation due to section 152(2) RTA 1988; the exclusion in Article 10(2) does not apply as the Claimant knew the driver was uninsured, not the vehicle.

Court Disposition

Claim against MIB succeeds on both preliminary issues.

Orders

  • MIB is required to compensate the Claimant under Directive 2009/103/EC.
  • MIB cannot rely on the exclusion in Article 10(2) against the Claimant.