Colley V Shuker & Ors [2019] EWHC 781 (QB) (28 March 2019)

Colley V Shuker & Ors [2019] EWHC 781 (QB) (28 March 2019)

Section 152(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides the Second Defendant with a complete statutory defence; any incompatibility with Directive 2009/103/EC cannot be resolved by permissible purposive interpretation or disapplication in a claim between private parties; the claim against the Second Defendant has no real prospect of success and must be struck out.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 781
Parties
Claimant: Daniel James Colley; First Defendant: Dylan Shuker; Second Defendant: UK Insurance Limited; Third Defendant: Motor Insurers' Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Applications to Strike Out, Set Aside Extension of Time, and Amend Claim
Outcome
Claim against Second Defendant struck out; summary judgment for Second Defendant; Third Defendant's application dismissed; permission granted to join Secretary of State and amend claim (except against Second Defendant).
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance, Third Party Compensation, Directive 2009/103/ec Incompatibility, Service of Claim Form, Extension of Time, Amendment of Pleadings
Insurance Law Personal Injury EU Law Civil Procedure Motor Insurance Third Party Compensation Directive 2009/103/ec Incompatibility Service of Claim Form +2 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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel James Colley

Claimant

Dylan Shuker

First Defendant

UK Insurance Limited

Second Defendant

Motor Insurers' Bureau

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Applications to Strike Out, Set Aside Extension of Time, and Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 152(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is incompatible with Directive 2009/103/EC
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the Second Defendant should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the extension of time for service on the First Defendant should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Section 152(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides the Second Defendant with a complete statutory defence; any incompatibility with Directive 2009/103/EC cannot be resolved by permissible purposive interpretation or disapplication in a claim between private parties; the claim against the Second Defendant has no real prospect of success and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim against Second Defendant struck out; summary judgment for Second Defendant; Third Defendant's application dismissed; permission granted to join Secretary of State and amend claim (except against Second Defendant).

Orders

  • Striking out of pleaded case against Second Defendant and summary judgment for Second Defendant
  • Dismissal of Third Defendant's application to set aside extension of time