Colley V Shuker & Ors

Colley V Shuker & Ors

The claim against the Second Defendant was struck out because section 152(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides a complete statutory defence, and any incompatibility with EU law cannot be resolved by purposive interpretation or disapplication in a claim between private parties. The extension of time for service on the First Defendant was valid as the Claimant took reasonable steps to ascertain the address and good service was effected. Permission to join the Secretary of State for Transport and amend the Particulars of Claim was granted, except for allegations against the Second Defendant, which were struck out.

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
Civil / Ruling on Applications: Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Extension of Time, Joinder, Amendment
Outcome
Claim against Second Defendant struck out and dismissed; Third Defendant’s application to set aside extension of time dismissed; permission granted to join Secretary of State for Transport and amend Particulars of Claim (except against Second Defendant).
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Insurance, Third Party Compensation, Compatibility of Domestic Law With EU Directives, Procedural Extensions, Joinder of Parties
Insurance Law Civil Procedure European Union Law Motor Vehicle Insurance Third Party Compensation Compatibility of Domestic Law With EU Directives Procedural Extensions Joinder of Parties

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 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

Civil / Ruling on Applications: Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Extension of Time, Joinder, Amendment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the Second Defendant was struck out because section 152(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides a complete statutory defence, and any incompatibility with EU law cannot be resolved by purposive interpretation or disapplication in a claim between private parties. The extension of time for service on the First Defendant was valid as the Claimant took reasonable steps to ascertain the address and good service was effected. Permission to join the Secretary of State for Transport and amend the Particulars of Claim was granted, except for allegations against the Second Defendant, which were struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim against Second Defendant struck out and dismissed; Third Defendant’s application to set aside extension of time dismissed; permission granted to join Secretary of State for Transport and amend Particulars of Claim (except against Second Defendant).

Orders

  • The pleaded case against the Second Defendant is struck out and summary judgment is given for the Second Defendant.
  • The Third Defendant’s application to set aside the order extending time for service of the claim form on the First Defendant is dismissed.