Off road accident and the scope of the MIB’s liability

Mr Justice Soole in the recent case of Lewis v Tindale & MIB (2018) has ruled on the scope of the MIB’s liability as an arm/ “emanation” of the state.
In this case the claimant (a pedestrian) suffered serious injuries in a collision with an uninsured vehicle whilst on private farmland. Proceedings were issued against the driver and the MIB (plus, in case of failure against the MIB, the Secretary of State for Transport– this was stayed pending resolution of the claim against the MIB).
The MIB did not dispute the driver’s full liability for the accident but contended that it had no contingent liability to the claimant under the Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement because the accident and injures were not caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place. Therefore, the question was whether the MIB had any liability and trial was set down for this preliminary issue.
Soole J, after careful consideration of previous authority and applying the European Court of Justice judgments in in Vnuk (Case C-162/13) and Farrell v. Whitty (No.2) (Case C-413/15), ruled that:-
- An accident on private land was not a liability which was required to be insured against pursuant to Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988
- However, it was a liability which the MIB is obliged to satisfy pursuant to Directive 2009/103/EC (at least to the extent of the minimum requisite cover of €1 million per victim)
- the MIB was an arm/emanation of the state and therefore the provisions of the relevant EU Motor Insurance Directives have direct effect
A question which is likely to be raised is whether the minimum cover of €1 million is in breach of the EU law principle of equivalence since claimants who are injured on “road” benefit from unlimited damages.
Please note
The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, expressed or implied.
Related Guides
- June 29, 2018
Injury claims and contempt of Court
- May 4, 2018
Hourly rates and costs budgeting.
- March 6, 2018
Case Study – Accommodation Claim
Our Latest Injury & Medical Claims Insights
- April 2, 2025
MJF V University Hospitals Birmingham [2024] – The “Holmesian Fallacy” And The Limits Of A Put To Proof Defence
- March 31, 2025
Pre-Existing Conditions in Psychiatric Personal Injury Claims
- March 26, 2025
Riding the Risk: Micromobility in Personal Injury
- March 18, 2025
The importance of support throughout the life of a claim
- February 19, 2025
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Litigation
- February 12, 2025
What does naming judges have to do with vulnerable claimants?
Latest Articles
View allContact us today
"*" indicates required fields
Contact the commercial
& civil Dispute team today
"*" indicates required fields
Contact the Conveyancing team today
Contact the Conveyancing team today
Contact the Wills, Trusts
& Estates team today
Contact the Court of
Protection team today
Contact the Employment Law team today
Contact the Clinical Negligence team today
Contact the Family & Relationships team today
Contact the Personal Injury Claims team today
Contact the leasehold & Freehold team today
Contact the Corporate & Commercial team today
Contact the housing & disputes team
"*" indicates required fields