Moreno v The Motor Insurers' Bureau

Where a UK resident is injured abroad by an uninsured or unidentified motorist, the assessment of compensation under regulation 13 of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance)(Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003 is governed by the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom. Regulation 13 is not itself a general choice-of-law provision. It creates a statutory right to compensation against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and uses a deeming provision under which the accident is treated as having occurred in Great Britain.

Rome II ordinarily applies the law of the country where the damage occurred to both liability and the assessment of damage. However, a first-instance court bound by Jacobs v MIB and Bloy and Ireson v MIB must apply their interpretation of regulation 13 unless a higher court changes it.

The claimant, resident in England and Wales, suffered serious injuries in Greece when struck by a vehicle which was uninsured. Liability under Greek law and the liability of the Greek guarantee fund were admitted. The claimant brought a claim against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau under regulation 13(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance)(Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003.

The preliminary issue was whether compensation should be assessed under Greek law, as the lex loci delicti, or under the law of England and Wales. The court considered the effect of Rome II, the Motor Insurance Directives, the 2002 Agreement between compensation bodies and guarantee funds, and the Court of Appeal authorities in Jacobs v MIB and Bloy and Ireson v MIB.

1. Applicable law. The preliminary issue was answered in favour of the claimant. Compensation payable under regulation 13 was to be assessed in accordance with the law of England and Wales.
2. Construction of regulation 13. Regulation 13(1) identifies when a right to compensation arises. Regulation 13(2)(b), read with regulation 16, creates an enforceable statutory obligation and civil debt. The deeming words requiring the accident to be treated as having occurred in Great Britain govern the assessment of compensation as well as the MIB’s obligation to respond to accidents abroad.
3. The right under regulation 13 is not a system of no-fault compensation. The claimant must establish liability under the law applicable to the tort or delict. That law will normally be the law of the country where the accident occurred under Article 4 of Rome II. The measure of compensation is nevertheless assessed under the law of England and Wales under the binding interpretation of regulation 13 in Jacobs v MIB, followed in Bloy and Ireson v MIB.
4. Rome II. Article 4 ordinarily requires the law of the place where the damage occurs to govern both liability and the assessment of damage, subject to Articles 4(2) and 4(3). The judgment considered that Rome II gave the MIB’s arguments considerable force and that the Court of Appeal might need to reconsider Jacobs v MIB. Rome II had altered the legal landscape and sought greater uniformity, but it did not entitle this court to depart from binding Court of Appeal authority.
5. The private 2002 Agreement could not determine the meaning of the Directives or the 2003 Regulations. The claim was therefore determined under the existing Court of Appeal authorities, notwithstanding the court’s view that the contrary arguments under Rome II were substantial.

The judgment itself was a first-instance decision on a preliminary issue. It records that Jacobs v MIB had been decided by the Court of Appeal and that Bloy and Ireson v MIB had followed it. The High Court was bound by those decisions and held that compensation was assessable under the law of England and Wales.