Linse, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of North Wales Police

A motor insurance policy that is voidable for non-disclosure remains in force unless and until the insurer validly avoids it. A certificate issued under the policy is therefore a valid certificate of insurance for the purposes of the statutory vehicle-release regime while the policy remains in force. Police officers deciding whether to release a seized vehicle must assess the certificate’s legal status at the relevant time. The possibility that the insurer may later avoid the policy is immaterial. Judicial review was an appropriate remedy where the public authority disposed of the vehicle after the claim had been brought. The unlawful decision was quashed, and damages were directed to be assessed within the judicial review proceedings.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by the North Wales Police not to release her seized Mercedes Benz Unimog. The police considered that an NFU Mutual certificate was not valid because alleged non-disclosure entitled the insurer to avoid the policy. The vehicle was later disposed of after the claim had been issued and after the court had ordered the matter to be listed for a rolled-up hearing. The issues were whether the certificate was valid under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005, whether an alternative claim in conversion was adequate, and what remedy remained after disposal of the vehicle.

1. Permission and legality. Permission was granted and the substantive claim succeeded. The central issue was the meaning of a “valid certificate of insurance” under regulation 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005.
2. Non-disclosure or misrepresentation makes an insurance contract voidable, not void. The insured contract remains in force unless and until the insurer elects to avoid it. The defendant accepted that the officer’s description of the non-disclosure as having “invalidated” the policy was legally incorrect.
3. The reasoning of Durrant v McClaren [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 170, concerning the continuing effect of a motor policy capable of avoidance, applied with equal force under the present statutory scheme in sections 151 and 152 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. No declaration under section 152(2) had been obtained before the relevant events.
4. When the NFU Mutual certificate was presented in December 2019, the policy had not been avoided. It was therefore a valid certificate for the purposes of regulation 5. The officers acted on immaterial considerations by treating the possibility of later avoidance as making the certificate invalid.
5. A county-court claim for conversion was not an adequate alternative remedy. The lawfulness of a public authority’s decision was appropriately challenged by judicial review, which had been brought promptly.
6. The disposal of the vehicle after the court had ordered the matter to be listed was highly surprising and did not defeat the claim. Remittal was pointless because the vehicle no longer existed in the defendant’s custody. The decision was quashed, and the court directed the claimant to provide evidence of loss so that damages and consequential matters could be assessed in the present proceedings.

First-instance judicial review in the High Court (Administrative Court). No appeal history is stated in the judgment.