Axn and Others v John Worboys and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SILBER |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 1730 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ10X04806, HQ10X04808 HQ10X04500, HQ10X00785 HQ10X00719, HQ10X00499 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 25 June 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 1730 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Silber
Case No: HQ10X04806, HQ10X04808
HQ10X04809, HQ10X04807
HQ10X04500, HQ10X00785
HQ10X00719, HQ10X00499
Edwin Glasgow QC, Justin Levinson and Angela Rainey (instructed by Pannone) for the Claimants
Andrew Bartlett QC and Isabel Hitching (instructed by DAC Beachcroft) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 24 and 25 April 2012
Further Written Submissions served on 26 April 2012
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
I. Introduction
On 13 March 2009, John Worboys was convicted at Croydon Crown Court of a number of offences, including administering a substance with intent, attempted and actual sexual intercourse and rape while acting as a taxi driver. Civil actions have been commenced by his victims against Worboys and the insurers of Worboys' taxi by ten of his victims of those crimes, who allege that similar offences were committed against them. It is understood that other victims may bring similar actions.
The present application is concerned with the resolution of a series of preliminary issues aimed at determining whether the claimants as victims of Worboys' criminal activities can bring claims against the insurers of Worboys' taxi. Anonymity orders have been made in favour of the claimants, but I discharged earlier anonymity orders made in favour of the second defendants ("the insurers").
II. A Summary of the Background to the Claims
The agreed facts on which the present application is to be determined are set out in the Appendix to this judgment, but the basic facts are that at the time of the offences in about 2007, Worboys had a licence to operate a Hackney Carriage within the Metropolitan Police District and in the City of London, but not in the Bournemouth area, which is where the offences against one of the claimants were committed. He had in place private and public hire motor insurance.
The way in which Worboys committed his offences was that after finishing his legitimate work as a taxi driver, he set about targeting women who were alone at night and who needed transport home. He offered to take them to their destinations and, after, they accepted, they sat in his taxi. During their journeys home, Worboys engaged them in conversation during which he persuaded them with lies to accept alcoholic drinks, which unknown to his passengers he had previously laced with sedatives.
When the sedative had taken effect, he carried out the sexual assaults on his sedated victims. It is accepted that his conduct was on each occasion a deliberate and premeditated criminal enterprise falling outside the scope of his licensed activities as a taxi driver and that the injuries on his victims were inflicted intentionally. The consequences for Worboys' victims were not surprisingly traumatic and devastating.
The claimants have brought claims against Worboys for damages alleging assault by poisoning, sexual assault and false imprisonment. It is to be assumed for the purpose of the present preliminary hearing that the liability of Worboys will be established.
The preliminary issues are concerned with whether, and to what extent, the claimants have, in addition to their claims against Worboys, valid causes of action against the insurers of Worboys as providers of the compulsory motor insurance required by the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("RTA 1988").
In essence, the claimants' case is that the insurers insured Worboys pursuant to the RTA 1988 in respect of his liability to the claimants for the matters of which complaint is made by the claimants. Thus it is said that upon the claimants obtaining judgment against Worboys, the insurers will be liable to pay the judgment sums to the claimants as required by section 151 of the RTA 1988.
The insurers deny that they are liable. Very sensibly, it has been agreed between them and the claimants that the legal questions as to the scope of the liability of the insurers should be disposed of in the most proportionate way and in a way that would not cause further distress to the claimants by requiring them to give evidence.
It has therefore been agreed that there should be a trial of preliminary issues on the basis of assumed facts, which are set out in the Appendix and which I have summarised above. The order for the trial of the preliminary issues has been made only in eight cases, but, as I have explained, the insurers expect that the result of this application will affect other cases, which are in progress. Issues of limitation and quantum are to be determined at a subsequent trial.
III. The Statutory Regime
The claims against the insurers are based on section 151 of RTA, which (in so far as is material) provides with emphasis added that: —
"151.—Duty of insurers… to satisfy judgment against person insured…
(1) This section applies where, after a certificate of insurance … has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected… a judgment to which this subsection applies is obtained.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and… -
(a) it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy… to which the certificate relates and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy…".
The regime by which the insurers have a liability to satisfy a judgment against their assured is subject to four conditions which must be satisfied, namely first, that a certificate of insurance must have been provided to the person against whom a judgment has been obtained; second, that the judgment must have actually been obtained against the insured; third, that the judgment against the insured must relate to a liability covered by Section 145 RTA 1988; and finally that the liability must be covered by the policy.
The first two requirements are satisfied in this case because first a certificate of insurance was provided to Worboys by the insurers, and second it is assumed for the purposes of this preliminary issue that each claimant will obtain judgment against Worboys. The agreed assumed facts would entitle the claimants to obtain judgment against him.
The third requirement (namely that the judgment against the insured relates to the liability covered by Section 145 RTA 1988) requires consideration of that section, which provides, in so far as is relevant, that:
"145.—Requirements in respect of policies of insurance.
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must satisfy the following conditions.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the policy—
(a) must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [or other public place] in Great Britain…".
More specifically, this third issue entails consideration of whether the case of the claimants constitutes "bodily injury to any person …caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road". As I will explain, it is the consideration of the application of those words to the agreed facts, which is at the heart of this issue.
The final issue to be determined on this application is whether the compulsory insurance required from Worboys covers claims by the claimants and that entails consideration of whether these claims are in fact "covered by the terms of the policy", which are the words in section 151(2)(a) RTA 1988, which I have underlined in paragraph 11 above.
The third and fourth issues have been the subject of admirable written and oral submissions by counsel for which I am very grateful. In particular, at the close of the hearing, counsel submitted a useful schedule setting out their different views on the issues raised on the application. Unfortunately, pressure of work has led to the preparation of this judgment being delayed for which I apologise.
IV. The Preliminary Issues
Those Issues with changes inserted to coincide with the abbreviations used in this judgment are:—
"1. Did the bodily injuries suffered by the claimants "arise out of the use of the [Worboys'] vehicle on a road or other public place" within the meaning of RTA 1988 s145 (3) (a)?
2. Were Worboys' deliberate acts of poisoning and of sexual assault such that liability in respect of them:-
(a) was required by RTA 1988 s145(3)(a) to be covered by a policy of insurance?
(b) was covered by the policy issued by the insurers? (To avoid overlap with Issue (3), Issue (2)b is to be answered without reference to the limitations on use set out in the certificate of insurance).
3. Having regard to the limitations on use set out in the certificate of insurance, was Worboys' use of the vehicle at the material times a use insured by the policy issued by the insurers?
4. Having regard to the answers to Issues (1)-(3), are the insurers liable, pursuant to RTA 1988 s151, to pay to a claimant any sum payable pursuant to the assumed judgment to be obtained by her against Worboys, or any specified part thereof?"
It is agreed that these issues are to be determined on the basis of:—
(a) The agreed assumed facts filed with the Court and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Muhammad Adli Nabihan bin Abdul Razak v Tetuan Malaysia Motor Insurance Pool
-
DSD v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...were dismissed at a preliminary hearing: See AXN & ORS v (1) John Worboys Inceptum Insurance Co ltd (Formerly HSBC Insurance (UK) LTD) [2012] EWHC 1730 per Silber J. (3) The civil action against Worboys overlaps with the claims brought against the Defendant and, as such, the remedy (the set......
-
Neil Carroll (A protected party, suing by his mother and litigation friend, Catherine Carroll) v Michael Taylor
...close to the line and was also satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did. 50 In AXN v Worboys [2012] EWHC 1730 (QB) (“ Worboys”) Silber J summarised the principles that emerge from Dunthorne v Bentley in these terms at [38]: “first, that the concept of......