Gardner v Moore [1984]
- Reported: [1984] A.C. 548; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 714, HL
- Year: 1984
- Court: House of Lords
FACTS:-
The Claimant suffered serious injuries when the First Defendant deliberately drove his motor vehicle onto the pavement where the Claimant was walking. At the time of the offence, the First Defendant was not insured. The Claimant brought an action against the First Defendant claiming damages for personal injury and against the Second Defendant, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. The trial judge awarded the Claimant the sum of £15,526.35 damages and made a declaration that the Bureau was liable to pay this sum. The Bureau appealed direct to the House of Lords.
HELD:-
Mr Gardner could recover from the Motor Insurers Bureau.
Lord Hailsham considered the previous rule of law that says that a person may not profit by their own wrong. He also considered the case of Hardy v. MIB [1964] 2 QB 745.
Section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (now section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) imposed on the insurer for the benefit an innocent third party an obligation to recompense him for the liability incurred by an uninsured third party in respect of a liability for which he should have been insured under section 143 and sections 145. The MIB Agreement imposed on the MIB an obligation to underwrite this liability so far as regards uninsured or untraceable tortfeasors. This was a principle of public policy and could not be pushed aside by the rule that an insured cannot claim on his insurance policy by reason of his wrongdoing.
Lord Hailsham also considered two other matters that he said were irrelevant. Firstly the court had been invited to examine the actual terms of policies issued by insurance companies with a view to ascertaining the meaning of the word “accident”. Lord Hailsham said that whether the word “accident” fell within the definition of an insurance policy or not, that made no difference to construction of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and the MIB Agreements.
Secondly the court was also invited to examine the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Lord Hailsham said that it was quite possible to make application to both the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (now Authority) and to the MIB, but he recognised that the MIB scheme was more generous to the Claimant. However since the MIB scheme came into force before the advent of the CICB (1964) Lord Hailsham could not see how the scheme could be used an aid to construction of the MIB scheme.
Related posts:
