Akers & Ors v Motor Insurers' Bureau & Anor
On the evidence, the only reasonable conclusion was that Mr Akers either knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was uninsured, thus falling within the exception in clause 6(1)(e) of the MIB Agreement 1988, and the MIB was not liable to satisfy the judgment.
- Parties
- Claimants/respondents: Akers and Others; Defendants/appellants: Motor Insurers' Bureau; Defendant: Roy Thorne
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 January 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Guildford County Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Motor Insurance, Liability of Insurers, Knowledge of Uninsured Status, Interpretation of Insurance Agreements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Akers and Others
Claimants/respondents
Motor Insurers' Bureau
Defendants/appellants
Roy Thorne
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Guildford County Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the deceased passenger knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was uninsured under clause 6(1)(e) of the MIB Agreement 1988
- 2 Whether the MIB is liable to satisfy the judgment against the uninsured driver
Ratio Decidendi
On the evidence, the only reasonable conclusion was that Mr Akers either knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was uninsured, thus falling within the exception in clause 6(1)(e) of the MIB Agreement 1988, and the MIB was not liable to satisfy the judgment.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Declaration that the MIB is not obliged to satisfy the judgment against Roy Thorne.
- MIB is not obliged to pay any costs of the claimant in respect of the hearing below.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment