Wilkinson v Fitzgerald & Anor [2009] EWHC 1297 (QB) (11 June 2009)

Wilkinson v Fitzgerald & Anor [2009] EWHC 1297 (QB) (11 June 2009)

Section 151(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which allows an insurer to recover from a person insured by the policy who caused or permitted uninsured use, is not incompatible with the Second Motor Insurance Directive. The insurer's obligation to compensate the victim is fulfilled by satisfying the judgment, and the subsequent right of recovery does not constitute an impermissible exclusion under EU law. The statutory language is clear and cannot be reinterpreted to exclude victims from recovery; any remedy for alleged incompatibility lies against the Government, not by judicial reinterpretation.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1297 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Benjamin Wilkinson (by his father and Litigation Friend Stephen Wilkinson); First Defendant: Kieran Thomas Fitzgerald; Second Defendant: Churchill Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Trial of Preliminary Issue / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
The insurer is liable to satisfy the judgment against the First Defendant but is entitled to recover the amount from the Claimant under s.151(8) RTA 1988.
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance Liability, Right of Recovery by Insurer, Implementation of EU Directives, Compulsory Insurance, Victim Compensation, Interpretation of Road Traffic Act 1988
Insurance Law European Union Law Personal Injury Motor Insurance Liability Right of Recovery by Insurer Implementation of EU Directives Compulsory Insurance Victim Compensation +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

Benjamin Wilkinson (by his father and Litigation Friend Stephen Wilkinson)

Claimant

Kieran Thomas Fitzgerald

First Defendant

Churchill Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trial of Preliminary Issue / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurer must indemnify the First Defendant in respect of the Claimant's claim
  2. 2 Whether the insurer has a right to recover such amount from the Claimant under Section 151(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or otherwise
  3. 3 Whether the right of recovery under UK law is incompatible with EC/EU Directives on motor insurance

Ratio Decidendi

Section 151(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which allows an insurer to recover from a person insured by the policy who caused or permitted uninsured use, is not incompatible with the Second Motor Insurance Directive. The insurer's obligation to compensate the victim is fulfilled by satisfying the judgment, and the subsequent right of recovery does not constitute an impermissible exclusion under EU law. The statutory language is clear and cannot be reinterpreted to exclude victims from recovery; any remedy for alleged incompatibility lies against the Government, not by judicial reinterpretation.

Court Disposition

The insurer is liable to satisfy the judgment against the First Defendant but is entitled to recover the amount from the Claimant under s.151(8) RTA 1988.

Orders

  • Declaration that the insurer must indemnify the First Defendant in respect of the Claimant's claim.
  • Declaration that the insurer is entitled to recover such amount from the Claimant pursuant to Section 151(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.