McCall v Poulton & Ors

McCall v Poulton & Ors

Given the arguable development in ECJ jurisprudence and conflicting national decisions, it is necessary and appropriate to refer the questions regarding the application of the Marleasing principle to the MIB Agreement and the status of the MIB as an emanation of the State to the European Court of Justice. The appeal is dismissed and the reference stands.

Parties
Claimant: Stuart McCall; First Defendant: Daniel Poulton; Second Defendant/appellant: Motor Insurers’ Bureau; Intervener/respondent: Helphire (UK) Ltd; Intervener/respondent: Angel Assistance Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court; Application for Reference to European Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance, Uninsured Drivers, Subrogation, Direct Effect of Directives, Interpretation of National Law in Light of EU Law, Emanation of the State
Insurance Law European Union Law Contract Law Motor Insurance Uninsured Drivers Subrogation Direct Effect of Directives Interpretation of National Law in Light of EU Law +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart McCall

Claimant

Daniel Poulton

First Defendant

Motor Insurers’ Bureau

Second Defendant/appellant

Helphire (UK) Ltd

Intervener/respondent

Angel Assistance Ltd

Intervener/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court; Application for Reference to European Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Marleasing principle applies to the interpretation of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement between the MIB and the Secretary of State
  2. 2 Whether the MIB is an emanation of the State for the purposes of direct effect under EU law
  3. 3 Whether it is necessary to refer questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the construction of the Directive and the status of the MIB

Ratio Decidendi

Given the arguable development in ECJ jurisprudence and conflicting national decisions, it is necessary and appropriate to refer the questions regarding the application of the Marleasing principle to the MIB Agreement and the status of the MIB as an emanation of the State to the European Court of Justice. The appeal is dismissed and the reference stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Reference to the European Court of Justice to determine the application of the Marleasing principle to the MIB Agreement and whether the MIB is an emanation of the State.