EVANS v (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS (2) MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU

A national court may refer questions to the Court of Justice under Article 234 where it reasonably considers them necessary to determine the proceedings. A reference is not hypothetical merely because the claimant may ultimately fail on causation. Where damages depend on identifying the precise breaches of Community law, questions about the legal status and procedures of a compensation body may be necessary before causation can fairly be decided. An appellate court should interfere with a first-instance case-management decision to refer only where it falls outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement.

Mr Evans brought proceedings against the Secretary of State and the Motor Insurers' Bureau alleging that the United Kingdom had failed properly to implement the Second Motor Insurance Directive in relation to victims of unidentified drivers. Buckley J ordered a reference to the Court of Justice under Article 234 concerning interest, costs, adjudication procedures and authorisation of the MIB.

The Secretary of State appealed, arguing that questions concerning authorisation and procedure were academic because the claim was bound to fail for want of causation. A secondary issue concerned possible summary judgment under CPR Part 24.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order referring questions to the Court of Justice was within the judge’s case-management discretion. The secondary summary-judgment issue did not arise.
2. The relevant question under Article 234 was whether, in the national court’s opinion, the reference was necessary to enable it to give judgment. The questions referred substantially corresponded with the preliminary issues already directed for trial.
3. The causation argument was premature. The damages claim, together with the claim for declaratory relief, required the court to determine what breaches of Community law had occurred before deciding whether any breach caused loss. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine causation without a complete picture of the alleged failures concerning authorisation and adjudication procedures.
4. The court declined to find that the outcome would inevitably have been the same even if Mr Evans had enjoyed an oral hearing or other procedural safeguards. No complete fact-finding exercise had yet occurred.
5. Brinkmann Tabakfabriken v Skatterministeriet was not closely analogous at that stage. It concerned the absence of formal implementation and an administrative classification error in the context of a sufficiently serious breach. Its reasoning might become relevant later, after findings on the seriousness and causative effect of the alleged breaches.
6. Under the earlier MIB arrangements, the agreement with the Secretary of State was contractual and did not itself confer a direct right of action on an unsatisfied judgment creditor. That background did not make the present reference academic.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal from Buckley J’s order referring questions to the Court of Justice under Article 234.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Buckley J ordered the reference after determining preliminary issues concerning implementation of the Second Motor Insurance Directive.