Delaney v Pickett & Anor

Delaney v Pickett & Anor

The majority held that the ex turpi causa defence did not bar the claim against the negligent driver, as the criminal activity was incidental and not causative of the injury. However, the majority (Richards and Tomlinson LJJ) held that clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the MIB Agreement excluded liability of the insurer/MIB because the vehicle was being used in the furtherance of a serious crime (possession with intent to supply cannabis) and the appellant knew of the criminal purpose before the journey commenced. Ward LJ dissented on the MIB Agreement issue, finding the insurer had not discharged the burden of proof and that the clause should be construed restrictively to allow the claim.

Parties
Appellant: Sean Robert Delaney; First Respondent: Shane Pickett; Second Respondent: Tradewise Insurance Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed against the first respondent (driver); appeal dismissed against the second respondent (insurer/MIB).
Legal Topics
Ex Turpi Causa Defence, Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement, Illegality in Tort Claims, Interpretation of Insurance Agreements, Causation and Public Policy, Possession With Intent to Supply, Personal Injury Compensation
Tort Law Insurance Law Contract Law Criminal Law Ex Turpi Causa Defence Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement Illegality in Tort Claims Interpretation of Insurance Agreements +3 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Robert Delaney

Appellant

Shane Pickett

First Respondent

Tradewise Insurance Services Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex turpi causa defence bars the appellant’s claim for damages following a road traffic accident during a criminal enterprise
  2. 2 Whether clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement excludes liability of the insurer/MIB in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was in possession of cannabis with intent to supply or for personal use

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the ex turpi causa defence did not bar the claim against the negligent driver, as the criminal activity was incidental and not causative of the injury. However, the majority (Richards and Tomlinson LJJ) held that clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the MIB Agreement excluded liability of the insurer/MIB because the vehicle was being used in the furtherance of a serious crime (possession with intent to supply cannabis) and the appellant knew of the criminal purpose before the journey commenced. Ward LJ dissented on the MIB Agreement issue, finding the insurer had not discharged the burden of proof and that the clause should be construed restrictively to allow the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed against the first respondent (driver); appeal dismissed against the second respondent (insurer/MIB).

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the appellant against Shane Pickett for damages to be assessed.
  • Claim against Tradewise Insurance Services Limited (insurer/MIB) dismissed.