Howe v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2016] EWHC 640 (QB) (22 March 2016)

Howe v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2016] EWHC 640 (QB) (22 March 2016)

The MIB's liability to compensate the Claimant under the 2003 Regulations is not dependent on the liability of the French FDG; the MIB is required to compensate as if it were the authorised body and the accident had occurred in Great Britain, applying English law to the assessment of compensation. The Court is bound by the Court of Appeal decisions in Jacobs v MIB and Bloy v MIB.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 640
Parties
Claimant: Michael Howe; Defendant: Motor Insurers' Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Insurance Claim / Preliminary Issues Trial in High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Claimant succeeds on the first preliminary issue; MIB's liability is not dependent on FDG's liability.
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance Directives, Compensation for Untraced Drivers, Limitation Periods, Interpretation of EU Directives, Estoppel, Implementation of EU Law in UK
Insurance Law European Union Law Personal Injury Motor Insurance Directives Compensation for Untraced Drivers Limitation Periods Interpretation of EU Directives Estoppel +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Howe

Claimant

Motor Insurers' Bureau

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Insurance Claim / Preliminary Issues Trial in High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the MIB's liability to compensate the Claimant under the 2003 Regulations dependent on the French FDG being liable?
  2. 2 If so, has the limitation period expired for a claim against the FDG?
  3. 3 If not, is the claim against the MIB statute barred?

Ratio Decidendi

The MIB's liability to compensate the Claimant under the 2003 Regulations is not dependent on the liability of the French FDG; the MIB is required to compensate as if it were the authorised body and the accident had occurred in Great Britain, applying English law to the assessment of compensation. The Court is bound by the Court of Appeal decisions in Jacobs v MIB and Bloy v MIB.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds on the first preliminary issue; MIB's liability is not dependent on FDG's liability.

Orders

  • Declaration that MIB is liable to compensate the Claimant under the 2003 Regulations irrespective of the FDG's liability.