| ROAD TRAFFIC — Motor Insurers’ Bureau — Uninsured driver — Exception to bureau’s liability — Passenger in car killed in accident caused by uninsured driver — Deceased’s widow claiming under Fatal Accidents Act 1976 — Whether bureau liable to satisfy judgment against driver — Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1999, cl 6(1)
Phillips (as representative of the estate of Neville Phillips, decd) v Rafiq and another [2007] EWCA Civ 74
CA: Ward, Latham LJJ and Charles J: 14 February 2007
Changes introduced into the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1999 required the MIB to satisfy any judgment obtained under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 by a claimant, being a dependant of a person who, having been a passenger in a car carelessly driven by a driver that he knew was uninsured, had been killed in a road traffic accident.
The Court of Appeal so held in reserved judgments dismissing the appeal of the second defendant, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (“MIB”), from the declaration by Judge Seymour QC, sitting as a judge of the Queen’s Bench Division on 11 May 2006, in favour of the claimant, Mrs Louise Phillips, widow of Neville Phillips, who died in August 2007 as a result of a traffic accident caused by the first defendant, an uninsured driver, Mohammed Rafiq.
Clause 6(1)(e) of the 1999 Agreement excepted the MIB from liability to satisfy compensation claims where a claim was made “by a claimant who, at the time of the use giving rise to the relevant liability, was voluntarily allowing himself to be carried in the vehicle” knowing it was being used without there being a proper contract of insurance.
“Claimant” was defined in the Agreement as “a person who has commenced or who proposes to commence relevant proceedings”.
WARD LJ said that the MIB had been set up in 1946 to provide a scheme for compensating victims of uninsured drivers. The first defendant had not disputed negligence and had taken no part in the case. The claim was for loss of income after the death of the deceased, brought by his widow for herself and dependents under s 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Such a claim by a dependent clearly was separate and distinct from any surviving claim under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. The issue concerned the exception to the 1999 Agreement and the extent to which it differed from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1988, as considered by the House of Lords in White v White [2001] 1 WLR 481. Clause 6.1(e) of the 1988 Agreement had provided an exception from liability where “the person suffering death” had allowed himself to be carried in an uninsured vehicle. Clearly the 1988 Agreement would have excluded the claim: but crucial differences in language were introduced in 1999. The judge found the wording in the 1999 Agreement of the exception and the definition of “claimant” clear. The parties to the 1999 Agreement, he held, clearly had wished to make different provision for sound policy reasons. His judgment was correct. The stark fact was that the formula in the 1988 Agreement was not adopted in 1999. The 1988 Agreement would have excluded a claim of this kind. But the plain words of the1999 Agreement, when construed literally, clearly included a derivative claim of the kind brought in this action. That literal meaning had to prevail. The judge was correct in his interpretation and the appeal should be dismissed.
LATHAM LJ and CHARLES J agreed.
|
