Bennett v Stephens & Anor

Bennett v Stephens & Anor

The continuity of payment under the periodical payments order is reasonably secure, as the risk of the claimant having no enforceable claim against MIB or an equivalent body is so remote as to be discounted for present purposes. The order binds only the Defence Insurer, requiring it to pay or procure payment by MIB, but does not bind MIB directly when it is not a party.

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

Affected Third Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 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 to the proceedings
  3. 3 Interpretation of the 1999 Agreement and its effect on accrued claims

Ratio Decidendi

The continuity of payment under the periodical payments order is reasonably secure, as the risk of the claimant having no enforceable claim against MIB or an equivalent body is so remote as to be discounted for present purposes. The order binds only the Defence Insurer, requiring it to pay or procure payment by MIB, but does not bind MIB directly when it is not a party.

Court Disposition

Court satisfied that continuity of payment is reasonably secure; PP Order stands as binding only on Defence Insurer, not MIB.

Orders

  • Periodical payments order upheld as drafted, binding only on Defence Insurer.
  • Security Order remains in effect, allowing MIB to object but not binding it unless joined as a party.