Motor Insurance in UK Law

The second European strand relied upon by the MIB is that both the 2002 Agreement and the 2003 Regulations were made pursuant to the provisions of the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive. It is not disputed that the 2002 Agreement was the agreement contemplated in what is now Article 24.3 of the Consolidated Directive (formerly Article 6.3 of the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive).

What is now Article 25 of the 2009 Consolidated Directive provides that, where it is impossible to identify the insurance undertaking within two months of the date of the accident, the injured party may apply for compensation from the compensation body in the Member State where he resides and the compensation shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Articles 9 and 10.

I prefer to give a wide interpretation to the rule, as Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls, did in Byrne v. Brown (1889) 22 Queen's Bench Division, p. 657. It seems to me that when two parties are in dispute in an action at law, and the determination of that dispute will directly affect a third person in his legal rights or in his pocket, in that he will be bound to foot the bill, then the Court in its discretion nay allow him to be added as a party on such terns as it thinks fit.

But instead of amending the legislation so as to impose upon the Motor Insurers' Bureau a statutory liability to the unsatisfied judgment creditor as had been done by the Road traffic Act, 1934, in respect of the liability of insurers to satisfy judgments against defendants covered by a valid policy of insurance, the matter was dealt with by an agreement of 17th June, 1946, between the Minister of Transport and the Motor Insurers' Bureau.

Thus, it seems to me that the approach of European Directives—except in cases specifically covered, including that of passengers with which article 1 of the Third Directive is concerned—has been to leave it to Member States to determine the extent of compulsory insurance cover in respect of civil liabilities arising from motor accidents.

He is entitled to demand that, where there are choices to be made, the least expensive route which will achieve mitigation must be selected. So if the evidence shows that the claimant had a choice, and that the route to mitigation which he chose was more costly than an alternative that was open to him, then a case will have been made out for a deduction.

Here again is a recognition of the possibility of difference in the precise extent of the cover between the laws of individual member States. The scope or extent of the cover required in different member States may be greater or smaller than in others, but the policy must secure that the greater cover is available in respect of those States where the greater cover is required by its domestic law. That seems to me to have been recognised in the implementation of the Directive.