Jacobs v Motor Insurers Bureau

Rome II applies to a claim against a compensation body where the underlying road accident creates a conflict of laws and the claim arises from the tort or delict causing the injury.

The applicable law is that of the country where the direct damage occurred. The relevant damage is the personal injury and consequential loss caused by the tortfeasor, not the later failure of the compensation body to pay. The person claimed to be liable under Article 4(2) is the tortfeasor, not the compensation body. The Article 4(3) escape clause concerns the tort or delict, not the statutory compensation right.

The claimant, a United Kingdom resident, was seriously injured in Spain by a German national resident in Spain. The vehicle appeared to carry a United Kingdom registration plate, but it was unidentified and no insurer could be traced.

The claimant brought proceedings against the Motor Insurers Bureau under regulation 13 of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation body) Regulations 2003. Preliminary issues concerned whether Rome II applied and whether compensation should be assessed under English or Spanish law. The alternative application of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 was also raised.

1. Rome II applied. The claim involved a non-contractual obligation in a civil or commercial matter and a conflict of laws. The compensation obligation was secondary to the tortfeasor’s liability.
2. Regulation 13(2)(b) required compensation as if the accident had occurred in Great Britain and therefore pointed to English law. That provision could not be interpreted consistently with Rome II. As directly applicable European law, Rome II prevailed to the extent of inconsistency. The court applied Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629.
3. Under Article 4(1), the applicable law was the law of the country where the damage occurred. In a personal injury case, the damage meant the injury and consequential loss caused by the tortfeasor. It did not mean loss resulting from the compensation body’s failure to pay. The reimbursement and subrogation scheme confirmed that the compensation body acted as an intermediary.
4. Article 4(2) did not apply. The person claimed to be liable meant the person whose conduct caused the damage, rather than the MIB. Article 4(3) also did not apply because the relevant question was whether the tort or delict was manifestly more closely connected with another country.
5. The preliminary issue was answered by holding that Rome II applied and that compensation under regulation 13(2)(b) had to be assessed in accordance with Spanish law. A reference to the European Court was unnecessary.