S (A Child) v Goldstraw 2005

FACTS:-

The Claimant child (S) brought a claim on her own behalf and on behalf of her siblings for loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 against the Defendant. S’s mother (M) had been riding as a pillion passenger on a moped ridden by G, her husband, who was uninsured. There was a collision with a pedestrian and M died. S sued G and the Motor Insurers Bureau. The MIB argued that M had known that G was uninsured and relying on Clause 6(1)(e) of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999 argued that it was not liable to satisfy any judgment. S argued that the MIB could not  rely on Clause 6(1)(e) since she was the Claimant and did not have any knowledge of the lack of insurance.

HELD:-

Clause 6(1) (e) would be construed by reference to its context and to the Second Council Directive 84/5. Clause 6 had included the dependants of a deceased who knew that there was no insurance. If M had not died, the MIB would not have been required to satisfy her claim. It would be absurd if the MIB had to pay M’s dependants simply because she happened to die.

Note – this case needs to be read in the light of Phillips (Administratrix of the estate of Neville Phillips deceased) v Rafiq (1) and the MIB (2) reported in APIL PI Focus Vol 16 Issue 4.

Related posts:

1. Phillips (Administratrix Of The Estate Of Neville Phillips Decesased) v Rafiq (1) And The MIB 2006
2. Phillips (As Representative Of The Estate Of Neville Phillips Deceased) And Rafiq (1) And The MIB (2) [2007]
3. Akers v Motor Insurers Bureau [2003]