Inman v Kenny & Anor

For liability under the compulsory motor insurance regime, the relevant question is whether the injury was caused by, or arose out of, the use of a vehicle on a road. The statutory meaning of “road” is not extended to every public place merely because European directives concern motor insurance. Causation requires more than a “but for” connection with the vehicle’s earlier use on a road. A later, deliberate act occurring after the vehicle has left the road may be the operative cause. Later regulations extending the regime to other public places do not apply retrospectively. An explanatory note to regulations has no binding or operative effect.

Alison Inman obtained judgment against Edward Kenny after he seriously injured her while riding an uninsured motorcycle in a public park. The Motor Insurers Bureau was joined because its liability under the Uninsured Drivers Agreement depended on whether the injury resulted from a “relevant liability” covered by Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Assistant Recorder held that the metalled path was a road, but that the grassy bank was not, and that the injury did not arise out of the motorcycle’s use on the metalled path. The issue also concerned the effect of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000, which extended the statutory wording to other public places after the accident.

1. Appeal and permission. The Court held that the decision on the preliminary issue was a final decision for the purposes of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000. Permission should therefore have been sought from the Court of Appeal or the Assistant Recorder. The application for permission to appeal out of time was refused, and the appeal was refused with costs.
2. Road and causation. The Court applied the binding interpretation in Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd [1998] 4 All ER 417. The grassy bank path was not a road. Although the motorcycle used the metalled path to gain speed, the accident resulted from Mr Kenny’s deliberate choice, after leaving that path, to ride up the bank and take off. A “but for” connection was insufficient to establish that the injury arose out of use on a road. The Recorder’s factual conclusions were therefore open to him and were unassailable.
3. European directives and later regulations. The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000 were not retrospective. Their explanatory note was not part of the regulations and had no binding or operative effect. The Court was bound by the House of Lords’ construction of section 145(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and could not broaden “road” by reference to the later regulations or explanatory note. The close linkage between sections 143 and 145 made it impossible to give section 145(3) a wider meaning while leaving the criminal offence in section 143 unchanged.
4. Uninsured Drivers Agreement. The MIB’s liability was determined by the law in force when the injury occurred. At that date, “relevant liability” did not include liability arising from use of a vehicle in a public place which was not a road. The later extension of the statutory remedy could not assist the claimant.

• Liverpool County Court: The Assistant Recorder held that the accident did not result from the use of a motorcycle on a road.
• High Court: Permission to appeal out of time was purportedly granted and the appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that permission should have been sought in that court and that the purported High Court permission was ineffective.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused and the appeal was refused with costs.