Stych v Dibble & Anor [2012] EWHC 1606 (QB) (14 June 2012)

Stych v Dibble & Anor [2012] EWHC 1606 (QB) (14 June 2012)

Section 151(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 must be construed in line with the Second EU Motor Insurance Directive, so that the insurer must prove the claimant had actual or blind-eye knowledge that the vehicle was stolen or unlawfully taken. On the facts, Tradex failed to prove that Ian Stych knew or had blind-eye knowledge that the Range Rover was unlawfully taken. Therefore, the liability is not excluded and Tradex is liable to satisfy the judgment against Anthony Dibble.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1606 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Ian Stych; First Defendant: Anthony Malcom Dibble; Second Defendant: Tradex Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Insurance / Judgment After Trial on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
For the Claimant
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance Liability, Excluded Liability Under Road Traffic Act 1988 S.151, Interpretation of EU Motor Insurance Directives, Burden of Proof in Insurance Exclusions, Knowledge or Reason to Believe Vehicle Unlawfully Taken
Insurance Law Personal Injury European Union Law Motor Insurance Liability Excluded Liability Under Road Traffic Act 1988 S.151 Interpretation of EU Motor Insurance Directives Burden of Proof in Insurance Exclusions Knowledge or Reason to Believe Vehicle Unlawfully Taken

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Stych

Claimant

Anthony Malcom Dibble

First Defendant

Tradex Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Insurance / Judgment After Trial on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tradex Insurance is liable under s.151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to satisfy the judgment against Anthony Dibble for injuries to Ian Stych
  2. 2 Whether Ian Stych's claim is excluded under s.151(4) because he knew or had reason to believe the vehicle was stolen or unlawfully taken

Ratio Decidendi

Section 151(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 must be construed in line with the Second EU Motor Insurance Directive, so that the insurer must prove the claimant had actual or blind-eye knowledge that the vehicle was stolen or unlawfully taken. On the facts, Tradex failed to prove that Ian Stych knew or had blind-eye knowledge that the Range Rover was unlawfully taken. Therefore, the liability is not excluded and Tradex is liable to satisfy the judgment against Anthony Dibble.

Court Disposition

For the Claimant

Orders

  • Tradex Insurance Company Limited is liable to satisfy the judgment obtained by Ian Stych against Anthony Malcom Dibble under s.151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
  • Declaration granted that the liability is not excluded under s.151(4).