Bennett v Stephens & Anor [2012] EWHC 1 (QB) (18 January 2012)

Bennett v Stephens & Anor [2012] EWHC 1 (QB) (18 January 2012)

The court is satisfied that the continuity of payment under the periodical payments order is reasonably secure, but the PP Order is not binding on MIB as it is not a party; the Defence Insurer is responsible for payment and must procure payment by MIB in default, with any cessation of MIB's liability constituting a breach under s.2(7) of the Damages Act 1996.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1
Parties
Claimant: Anthony Nathaniel Bennett; First Defendant: Leonard John Stephens; Second Defendant: Zenith Insurance Company; Third Party: Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Post Settlement Approval, Determination of Periodical Payments Order and Security of Payment
Outcome
Court satisfied continuity of payment is reasonably secure; PP Order stands as drafted, not binding MIB directly.
Legal Topics
Periodical Payments, Damages Act 1996, Security of Payment, Motor Insurers' Bureau Liability, Consent Orders
Personal Injury Insurance Law Civil Procedure Periodical Payments Damages Act 1996 Security of Payment Motor Insurers' Bureau Liability Consent Orders

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

Parties

Anthony Nathaniel Bennett

Claimant

Leonard John Stephens

First Defendant

Zenith Insurance Company

Second Defendant

Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Post Settlement Approval, Determination of Periodical Payments Order and Security of Payment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continuity of payment under the periodical payments order is reasonably secure as required by s.2(3) Damages Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Motor Insurers' Bureau can be bound by the order when not a party
  3. 3 Interpretation of the Damages Act 1996 and the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The court is satisfied that the continuity of payment under the periodical payments order is reasonably secure, but the PP Order is not binding on MIB as it is not a party; the Defence Insurer is responsible for payment and must procure payment by MIB in default, with any cessation of MIB's liability constituting a breach under s.2(7) of the Damages Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Court satisfied continuity of payment is reasonably secure; PP Order stands as drafted, not binding MIB directly.

Orders

  • Periodical payments order approved, requiring Defence Insurer to pay claimant and to procure payment by MIB in default.
  • Security Order confirmed, allowing MIB to object and attend hearing if necessary.