Howe v Motor Insurers' Bureau

Under regulation 13 of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau’s liability to compensate a UK resident injured abroad by an unidentified vehicle is not dependent on establishing that the foreign guarantee fund is liable. The domestic compensation body must apply the deeming provision in regulation 13(2)(b), as interpreted by binding Court of Appeal authority.

A regulation 9(2) information request is not a necessary ingredient of the statutory cause of action in an untraced-driver case. The claim is subject to the six-year limitation period under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. Estoppel requires a sufficiently clear shared assumption, reliance and detriment; continuing negotiations and interim payments did not satisfy those requirements.

The claimant became paraplegic after a road accident in France caused by a wheel detached from an unidentified lorry. The French authorities could not identify the vehicle, driver or insurer. The claimant pursued compensation through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau under the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003.

Four preliminary issues were tried: whether MIB liability depended on liability of the French Fonds de Garantie; whether a claim against that fund was time-barred under French law; whether the claim against MIB was time-barred under English law; and whether estoppel or waiver prevented MIB relying on limitation.

1. Foreign guarantee fund liability. The court was bound by Jacobs v MIB [2010] EWCA Civ 1208 and Bloy v MIB [2013] EWCA Civ 1543. Those decisions established that regulation 13(2)(b) is a deeming provision treating the accident as having occurred in Great Britain, with the resulting consequences for the MIB’s obligation and the assessment of compensation. MIB liability was therefore not dependent on the claimant establishing liability of the French fund.
2. French limitation. This issue did not arise strictly, but was determined contingently. Under Article R421-12 of the French Insurance Code, the five-year foreclosure period had expired. The claimant could not probably rely on impossibilité d’agir, estoppel or waiver.
3. English limitation. The claim was a statutory claim under regulation 13. Regulation 9(2) was procedural in the context of an untraced vehicle and was not a necessary ingredient of the cause of action. The six-year period under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 therefore ran from accrual of the cause of action, and the claim was time-barred.
4. Estoppel and waiver. Estoppel by convention required an expressly shared assumption, responsibility for communicating it, reliance connected with subsequent dealings, and sufficient detriment to make resiling unjust or unconscionable. No unequivocal representation was made that MIB would not rely on limitation. The interim payment made after expiry of the relevant period and continued negotiations did not establish reliance or sufficient detriment. Estoppel by representation and waiver also failed.
5. The claim therefore failed.