Foreign law rules EU road injury claim sued in UK: Supreme Court
The scheme under which a victim of a road accident in an EU member state can in certain circumstances claim compensation directly from a body in their own member state, applies the law of the state of the accident, not the state where the clam is brought, to the claim, the UK Supreme Court ruled today.
Five Justices unanimously allowed an appeal by the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB), the defendant in a claim by Tiffany Moreno, who was seriously injured when hit by a car in Greece whilst on holiday there. It was not disputed that the accident was the fault of the driver, who was uninsured.
Ms Moreno claimed damages from the MIB, pursuant to Council directives culminating in a Sixth Directive 2009/103/EC, transposed into English law by the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003. A preliminary issue was argued on whether the scope of her claim was to be determined in accordance with English or Greek law. Her concern was that Greek law would yield a lesser measure of compensation than English law.
At first instance, Gilbart J considered that he was bound by previous Court of Appeal authority (Jacobs v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2010] EWCA Civ 1208) to hold that damages were to be determined by English law. He granted a “leapfrog” certificate to enable appeal direct to the Supreme Court, with its permission.
Allowing the appeal, Lord Mance, with whom Lords Clarke, Sumption, Toulson and Hodge agreed, said the scheme under the directives aimed to improve the prospects and ease with which injured parties could recover the compensation to which they were “entitled” in respect of any loss or damage caused by vehicles. The inference was that the victim was entitled to the same compensation, whether against the driver responsible, their insurer, or a motor insurance bureau of the state of the accident or the victim’s state of residence [31].
Construing the scheme as a consistent whole, the directives did not leave it to individual member states to provide for compensation in accordance with any law they might choose, but proceeded on the basis that a victim’s entitlement to compensation would be measured on a consistent basis, by reference to the law of the state of the accident, whichever of the routes to recovery provided by the directives they invoked. The position as a matter of European Union law was clear, and there was no need for a reference to the Court of Justice. The 2003 Regulations were consistent with the scheme of the directives. They provided which of the UK's legal systems would apply, but did not prescribe the measure of recovery. Jacobs was overruled.