Howe v Motor Insurers' Bureau

QOCS applies only where the proceedings include a claim for damages for personal injuries. A statutory claim for compensation under regulation 13 of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Board) Regulations 2003 is a claim for a civil debt recoverable independently of any breach of duty or other civil wrong. The fact that compensation is assessed by reference to personal-injury damages does not convert the statutory claim into a claim for damages. The court must construe CPR rule 44.13 in light of the purpose of the QOCS scheme, but that purpose cannot alter the clear construction of the rule. A declaration claim inextricably linked to the statutory compensation claim does not justify enforcement of costs under rule 44.16(2)(b) where QOCS would otherwise apply.

The claimant suffered catastrophic injuries in France when a wheel detached from an unidentified lorry. He brought proceedings against the Motor Insurers' Bureau under regulation 13 of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Board) Regulations 2003. The underlying claim failed on limitation grounds, and the claimant was ordered to pay 85% of the defendant's costs.

The remaining issue was whether the claimant had QOCS protection under CPR rule 44.13. The claim sought a declaration concerning the effect of the 2003 Regulations and, alternatively, damages exceeding £300,000. The central question was whether the proceedings included a claim for damages for personal injuries.

1. The court held that QOCS did not apply. The question under CPR rule 44.13(1) was determined by the substance of the claim, construed in light of the statutory purpose and general scheme of QOCS.

2. The claimant's cause of action arose under regulation 13 of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Board) Regulations 2003. Regulation 16 confirmed that sums due under the Regulations were recoverable as a civil debt. The liability was therefore statutory and independent of any breach of duty or other wrong by the MIB.

3. The court accepted that QOCS was intended to protect injured claimants from adverse costs orders. That purpose could not, however, extend the words of rule 44.13(1) beyond a claim for damages. Damages ordinarily required an award of money for a civil wrong, whereas the regulation 13 claim sought a statutory debt. The calculation of the sum by reference to personal-injury damages did not change its legal character.

4. Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Limited [2014] EWCA Civ. 105 supported the distinction between claims by injured persons and disputes concerning liability to fund personal-injury damages. Nemeti v Sabre Insurance Co Limited [2013] EWCA Civ. 1555 was consistent with treating a statutory motor-insurance claim as an indemnity or statutory claim rather than a negligence claim. The reasoning in Norman v Ali and Aziz [2000] Lloyds Rep IR 395 did not assist because a Monk v Warbey claim involved breach of statutory duty and was therefore a claim for damages for personal injuries.

5. The court declined to determine whether the exclusion of QOCS offended European principles of equivalence or effectiveness. The procedural differences between regulation 13 claims and ordinary claims against insured drivers made it inappropriate to reach that conclusion without a wider analysis.

6. Alternatively, if QOCS had applied, the declaration claim was inextricably linked to the personal-injury compensation claim. The court would therefore have refused permission under CPR rule 44.16(2)(b) to enforce the costs order on the basis of the pleading of the declaration.

7. Orders for costs made against the claimant could be enforced in the usual way.

The judgment determined the outstanding costs issue following the court's earlier judgment in the same proceedings, reported at [2016] EWHC 640 (QB). The underlying claim had failed and the claimant had been ordered to pay 85% of the defendant's costs.