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

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

The court held that the periodical payments order is not binding on the MIB, as MIB is not a party to the proceedings. The order is binding on the Defence Insurer, who must pay the claimant or procure payment by MIB. The risk of the claimant having no recourse to MIB or an equivalent body is so remote as to be discounted for present purposes, and the continuity of payment is reasonably secure. If MIB ceases to be liable, this would constitute a breach of the order, triggering the statutory protections and procedures.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1 (QB)
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 Road Traffic Accident / Post Settlement Approval; Application Regarding Periodical Payments Order and Security of Payment
Outcome
Application granted; court satisfied that continuity of payment is reasonably secure; order not binding on MIB.
Legal Topics
Periodical Payments Orders, Damages Act 1996 S.2, Security of Damages Payments, Role of Motor Insurers' Bureau, Consent Orders
Personal Injury Insurance Law Civil Procedure Periodical Payments Orders Damages Act 1996 S.2 Security of Damages Payments Role of Motor Insurers' Bureau 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 4 Authorities cited 6 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 Road Traffic Accident / Post Settlement Approval; Application Regarding Periodical Payments Order and Security of Payment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the periodical payments order is not binding on the MIB, as MIB is not a party to the proceedings. The order is binding on the Defence Insurer, who must pay the claimant or procure payment by MIB. The risk of the claimant having no recourse to MIB or an equivalent body is so remote as to be discounted for present purposes, and the continuity of payment is reasonably secure. If MIB ceases to be liable, this would constitute a breach of the order, triggering the statutory protections and procedures.

Court Disposition

Application granted; court satisfied that continuity of payment is reasonably secure; order not binding on MIB.

Orders

  • Periodical payments order stands as drafted, binding only on Defence Insurer.
  • Defence Insurer must pay claimant or procure payment by MIB if Defence Insurer defaults.