Hatton v Hall and Another [1996]

FACTS:

The plaintiff and first defendant were acquaintances and the plaintiff had employed the first defendant to do some work for him. When the work was finished for the day the plaintiff invited the first defendant to have a drink with him and suggested a public house some 10 miles distance away to which he would direct the first defendant who was unfamiliar with the area. They rode together on the first defendant’s motorcycle with the plaintiff riding as pillion passenger. On the return journey the motorcycle came off the road and the plaintiff sustained serious injuries.

The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the first defendant and, as he was uninsured, joined the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (“MIB”) as second defendant. The MIB claimed that the plaintiff had known that the first defendant had no insurance and had been the person using the vehicle at the time of the accident and that consequently MIB was exempt from liability under the provisions of clause 6(l)(c)(ii) of the 1972 Agreement. The judge gave judgment for the plaintiff against the MIB on the ground that, although the plaintiff had had reason to believe that the first defendant was uninsured, the plaintiff had not been a user of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau, MIB, appealed against a decision that the plaintiff, who had suffered injuries while travelling as a pillion passenger on an uninsured motorcycle driven by the first defendant, was not a “user” of the vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement 1972 cl.6(1)(c)(ii).

HELD:

The appeal was dismissed.  The Road Traffic Act 1988 s.143 created an absolute offence where the user of a vehicle failed to provide adequate insurance, and that the term “user” had the same meaning in cl.6 of the Agreement as in Part VI of the 1988 Act. The definition of “user” was subject to necessary restrictions, however, as otherwise many passengers could potentially, but unwittingly, commit s.143 offences.

An injured passenger’s claim against the MIB would not fail on the basis that the passenger had knowledge that the vehicle was not insured unless he also had additional liability as owner or user to insure the vehicle. A plan or agreement to undertake a journey in an uninsured vehicle could not amount to “user” status in the absence of a sufficient degree of control or management of the vehicle, Brown v Roberts [1965] 1 Q.B., [1963] C.L.Y. 3071 applied, Stinton v Stinton [1995] R.T.R. 167 CA (Crim Div) distinguished.

Related posts:

1. Starkey v Hall [1936]