Road traffic

Uninsured driver Motor Insurers Bureaus liability exceptions knew or ought to have known mere negligence insufficientWhite v White and another: HL (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote); 1 March 2001The claimant sustained injury while a passenger in a car driven by his brother that crashed owing to the brothers negligence.

The brother had been uninsured, and the claimant sought satisfaction of his claim for damages by the Motor Insurers Bureau.

The judge found that he had not known that his brother was uninsured but ought to have known since he had known in the past that he was driving unlicensed and thus uninsured and ought to have made sure about insurance on the night in question.

He held that nevertheless by virtue of article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC the bureau was liable to satisfy his claim, notwithstanding the terms of clause 6(1)(e)(ii) of the Motor Insurers Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1988.

The Court of Appeal allowed the bureaus appeal.

The claimant appealed.Geoffrey Tattersall QC and Conor Quigley, instructed by Hugh Potter & Co, Manchester, for the claimant.

Dermod OBrien QC, Fergus Randolph and Anna de Chassiron, instructed by Greenwoods, for the bureau.

Peter Roth QC and Helen Davies, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, intervening.Held, allowing the appeal (Lord Scott of Foscote dissenting), that in the context of the Directive knew in article 1(4) embraced the situation where a passenger had had information suggesting that the driver might well be uninsured but had deliberately refrained from asking but did not embrace the situation where he had not thought about insurance even though a prudent passenger would have done so; that, accordingly, the claimants claim fell outside the exclusion in article 1(4); and that, since the MIB agreement had been intended to give effect to the directive, knew or ought to have known in clause 6(1)(e)(ii) should bear the same meaning and, accordingly, did not embrace carelessness or negligence.

(WLR)