Smith -v- Meade & Ors [2016] IECA 389 (16 December 2016)

Smith -v- Meade & Ors [2016] IECA 389 (16 December 2016)

It is not possible to interpret the relevant national provisions (s. 65(1)(a) of the 1961 Act and Article 6 of the 1962 Regulations) in conformity with the Third Directive without adopting a contra legem interpretation. Where such interpretation is impossible, national courts must disapply the conflicting national law, even in disputes between private parties, but whether this extends to disapplying exclusion clauses in private insurance contracts (thus allowing recovery against the insurer) is a question requiring reference to the CJEU.

Citation
[2016] IECA 389
Parties
Plaintiff: David Smith; Defendant: Patrick Meade; Defendant: Philip Meade; Defendant/appellant: FBD Insurance plc; Defendants/respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal With Reference to CJEU Pending
Outcome
Appeal adjourned pending reference to the CJEU.
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance, Direct Effect of EU Directives, Interpretation of National Law in Light of EU Law, Horizontal Direct Effect, Personal Injuries, Exclusion Clauses in Insurance Policies
Insurance Law European Union Law Tort Law Motor Insurance Direct Effect of EU Directives Interpretation of National Law in Light of EU Law Horizontal Direct Effect Personal Injuries +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Smith

Plaintiff

Patrick Meade

Defendant

Philip Meade

Defendant

FBD Insurance plc

Defendant/appellant

Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal With Reference to CJEU Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether national law and insurance policy exclusion for non-seated passengers is compatible with EU Motor Insurance Directives
  2. 2 Whether national law can be interpreted in conformity with the Third Directive (Marleasing principles)
  3. 3 Whether exclusion clauses in insurance policies must be disapplied in litigation between private parties where national law is contrary to EU law

Ratio Decidendi

It is not possible to interpret the relevant national provisions (s. 65(1)(a) of the 1961 Act and Article 6 of the 1962 Regulations) in conformity with the Third Directive without adopting a contra legem interpretation. Where such interpretation is impossible, national courts must disapply the conflicting national law, even in disputes between private parties, but whether this extends to disapplying exclusion clauses in private insurance contracts (thus allowing recovery against the insurer) is a question requiring reference to the CJEU.

Court Disposition

Appeal adjourned pending reference to the CJEU.

Orders

  • Draft question to be referred to the CJEU under Article 267(1) TFEU regarding the obligation to disapply exclusion clauses in private insurance policies in light of EU law.
  • Counsel invited to make submissions on the form of the draft reference.