Bloy & Anor v Motor Insurers' Bureau

Under regulation 13(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003, compensation is assessed as if the accident had occurred in the relevant part of Great Britain. The assessment therefore follows English law and does not incorporate a foreign monetary ceiling.

A simple limit on recoverable compensation is procedural rather than a substantive limit on actionable damage. A private agreement between insurance bodies cannot alter Parliament’s regulation or restrict more favourable compensation permitted by the Motor Insurance Directives. No reference to the CJEU was required where the decisive issue concerned clear domestic legislation.

The claimants, British residents, were seriously injured in a road accident in Lithuania caused by an uninsured Lithuanian driver. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau accepted that it was liable to compensate them under the 2003 Regulations, but argued that its liability was limited to the maximum compensation recoverable under Lithuanian law.

On a preliminary issue, His Honour Judge Platts held that compensation was to be assessed under English law and was not subject to the Lithuanian ceiling. The MIB appealed. The central issues were the meaning of regulation 13(2)(b), the relevance of private international law and the 2002 Agreement, and whether a preliminary reference to the CJEU was required.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Construction of regulation 13(2)(b). The Court followed Jacobs v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2010] EWCA Civ 1208. Although the arguments differed, both cases concerned whether compensation under regulation 13(2)(b) was assessed by the law of the claimant’s residence or by the law of the accident state. Subject to establishing the tortious liability of the driver under Lithuanian law, the regulation deemed the accident to have occurred in the relevant part of Great Britain. Its consequences included assessment of compensation entirely under the applicable domestic law. The Lithuanian ceiling therefore did not apply.
2. Private international law. Even if English conflict-of-laws principles were relevant, the ceiling was a simple monetary limit on recoverable compensation. Under Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32, such a limit was procedural and governed by the lex fori. It was distinct from substantive rules excluding categories of damage, requiring a particular causal connection or governing remoteness.
3. European context. The 2002 Agreement was a private agreement between insurance-industry bodies. It was neither legislation nor an agreement between Member States and could not impose limits on compensation or determine the meaning of the relevant Directive. The Motor Insurance Directives established minimum levels and permitted more favourable national provisions. Regulation 13(2)(b) was therefore a coherent and compatible policy choice.
4. Preliminary reference. The decisive issue was the interpretation of United Kingdom legislation, not a doubtful question of EU law. The meaning of regulation 13(2)(b) was clear and compatible with the Directives. Applying the guidance in R v International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Ltd ex parte Else (1922) Ltd [1993] QB 534, the Court refused a reference.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2013] EWCA Civ 1543: dismissed the MIB’s appeal.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry: His Honour Judge Platts determined the preliminary issue in favour of the claimants, holding that compensation was assessed under English rather than Lithuanian law and was not limited by the amount recoverable from the Lithuanian compensation body.