White v London Transport
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER of THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE STAMP |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1971 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1971] EWCA Civ J0503-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 03 May 1971 |
[1971] EWCA Civ J0503-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Edmund Davies and
Lord Justice Stamp
Mr. TUDOR EVANS, Q. C., and Mr. ANTHONY SCRIVENER (instructed by Mr. G. S. M. Birch) appeared on behalf of the Appellant First Defendant.
Mr. WILLIAM CROWTHER (instructed by Messrs. Kingsbury & Turner) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiff.
Mr. QUENTIN EDWARDS (instructed by Messrs. L. Bingham & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Motor Insurers Bureau, Second Defendants.
On the 10th April 1970 Mrs. White was a passenger on one of the London buses. It was going round Parliament Square. She got up from her seat in order to get off at the next stop. The bus braked violently. She was thrown against a bar and was injured. She did not know whose fault it was. The solicitor took it up with the London Transport Executive. They said that it was not the fault of the bus driver, but that it was the fault of the driver of a van. He had overtaken the bus and cut sharply in front of it. That meant that the bus driver had to brake suddenly. The driver of that van was unknown and was untraced. Mrs. White's advisers accepted for the time being that it was the van driver's fault. They looked into an agreement which has recently been made by the Motor Insurers Bureau and made a claim under it. I must describe how it came to be made.
For many years from 1946 onwards the Motor Insurers Bureau has paid compensation in cases of known drivers who were negligent and ought by statute to have been insured but were not. That agreement is of such importance that, at the suggestion of the Court, it was appended in a note to a case of ( Hardy v. Motor Insurers Bureau 1964 2 Q. B. 745). But that agreement did not cover cases where the negligent driver was not known and could not be traced. That gave rise to hardship. So the Motor Insurers Bureau for some years made payments on an ex gratia basis. But it has now been put on a much better footing. By an agreement made on the 21st April of 1969 between the Motor Insurers Bureau and the Ministry, the Motor Insurers Bureau agree to pay compensation in cases where a driver cannot be traced, provided that it was his fault and his sole fault that the accident happened. If I may suggest it, this agreement might well form a note in the Law Reports. Relying on that agreement,Mrs. White's advisers made a claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau. On the 14th July of 1970 they wrote to the Bureau saying:
"We have given notice of a claim to London Transport, but they have stated that the Bus was forced to brake suddenly in order to avoid collision with a Van which out across its path. According to London Transport and to our Police Report the Driver of the Van cannot be traced…. We should be obliged if you could take this letter as a formal notification of our claim against you under the new Agreement dated the 21st April 1969."
The Motor Insurers Bureau, through its solicitors, then took advantage of one of the clauses of that agreement which says that they are entitled to require the injured person to take proceedings against an identified vehicle. On the 17th August of 1970 the Motor Insurers Bureau representatives wrote saying: "We do require your client to bring proceedings against the driver of the bus and London Transport."
Behind this request is this: If the injured person proves that the bus driver was wholly to blame or only in part to blame — it may be he was only one-tenth to blame - the result is that the injured person will recover full damages against London Transport, and he will not be able to come down against the Motor Insurers Bureau. So the Motor Insurers Bureau directed Mrs. White to bring proceedings against the London Transport Executive so as to make them liable, if it could be done.
Mrs. White's advisers did as they were directed. They issued a writ on the 15th December 1970 against London Transport Executive. They delivered a statement of claim alleging that the bus driver was driving too fast; that he failed to keep a proper look-out; and so forth. The London Transport Executiveput in a defence. In it they denied that they were guilty of negligence. They said it was the fault of the van driver. They alleged that Mrs. White had been guilty of contributory negligence in not keeping proper hold of the hand rail.
Such being the state of the pleadings, the Motor Insurers Bureau took out a summons before the Master and afterwards the Judge, asking that they should be added as a party to the action. They said: "We have got a vital interest in this matter, because, if the plaintiff should fall altogether against London Transport, she will be able to come down on us under the agreement of 1969: and we shall have to foot the bill." They said that the case came within Order 15 rule 6, which gives the Court power to order any person to be added as a party "whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectively determined and adjudicated."
The Master ordered the Motor Insurers Bureau to be added. The Judge affirmed it but put on a condition which I will mention later. Now the London Transport appeal to this Court. We are told that it is in the nature of a test case. There are some 64 similar proceedings against the London Transport, and some 260 or more about the country.
In order to decide this case, it is important to see the effect of the 1969 agreement. It gives very great powers to the Motor Insurers Bureau. By article 6 the injured person must give all such assistance as may be reasonably required to the Motor Insurers Bureau to enable it to investigate the matter. He must, for Instance, furnish to the Bureau statements and information in writing or orally, if they so request. By article 6(1)(b) the injured person, if so required by the Bureau, must take all such steps as may be reasonable to get judgment againstan identified person such as the London Transport Executive. In article 6(2) there is a provision for the Insurers Bureau to indemnify the injured person against all costs which he in ours in going on with the action in pursuance of the Bureau's request. Later on, in article 8, the Bureau can require the injured...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blenheim Leisure (Restaurants) Ltd and Others v The Registrar of Companies
...31 The judge then referred to Tymans Ltd v. Craven [1952] 2 QB 100, Vandervell's Trustee Ltd v. White [1971] AC 912 and White v, London Transport [1971] 2 QB 721. At p. 537F, he concluded: "So here it is difficult, as I say, to define what is in issue, but the matters which the court has to......
-
Sanders Lead Company Inc. v Entores Metal Brokers Ltd
...will therefore be similar to that described by Lord Denning in refusing joinder of the Motor Insurance Bureau under the old rule in White v. London Transport, (1971) 2 Queen's Bench 721 at p.727. Moreover, I agree with Mr. Tugendhat that to allow Metal to be joined in this action would be ......
-
Comptroller of Income Tax v ARW and another (Attorney-General, intervener)
...the intervener, or if the intervener has control over that party’s prosecution of the litigation: White v London Transport and Another [1971] 2 QB 721 (“White v London”). Thus, the AG need not be joined since he has and will continue to have control over the arguments put forward by the Pla......
-
Jonathan Charles Bell (Plaintiff) v Donnelly and Another
...by the insurance industry or by the legal profession to operate. I am also unassisted by the obiter dictum of Lord Denning MR in White v. London Transport [1971] 2 Q.B. 721, 725–726 to the following effect: "Behind this request is this: If the injured person proves that the bus driver was w......