McGoona v Motor Insurers Bureau [1969]
- Reported: [1969] 2 LLOYDS REP 34, QBD
- Year: 1969
- Court: Queen's Bench Division
FACTS:-
On 12th November 1959 the Claimant, a building worker employed by B. Ltd., sustained injuries while a passenger in a car driven by K who was a fellow-employee. The Claimant and K were travelling to a building site in Surrey where B. Ltd. had work. Under the terms of the National Working Rules of the building industry, B. Ltd. was bound to provide transport for their employees to the site or pay their travelling expenses. B. Ltd. had arranged to pay K. 4s. 6d. for each man carried by K. to the site.
On 26th October 1960, the Claimant issued a writ against K and B. Ltd. and on 9th November 1960, the Claimant’s solicitors informed K.’s insurers that they had issued that writ. On 28th September 1961, judgment was signed in default against K. On 7th February 1964, the Claimant’s damages were assessed at £2967. On 26th April 1963, Glyn-Jones, J., found that K. was not acting in the course of his employment with B. Ltd. and dismissed the Claimant’s claim against B. Ltd.
The Claimant claimed in respect of judgment against K. (which was not satisfied) against the first Defendant Motor Insurers’ Bureau and the second Defendant (a representative of K.’s insurers) on the grounds that agreement between B. Ltd. and K. was intended to have legal consequences; that, therefore, K. was carrying the Claimant for “hire or reward” within s.36 Road Traffic Act 1930 and the Motor Insurers Bureau were liable under their agreement with Ministry; alternatively that the Claimant was covered under K.’s policy with second Defendant; further , that second Defendant had notice of claim against K. and that was notice of “proceedings” within s.207(2)(a) Road Traffic Act 1960. The Defendant Motor Insurers Bureau contended that the arrangement between B. Ltd. and K. was informal and the Claimant was not being carried for hire or reward. The second Defendant contended that K. was not using his car within terms of policy, which provided:
“IT IS HEREBY DECLARED AND AGREED that the indemnity granted by this policy is limited to Use for Social, Domestic and Pleasure purposes and use by the Policyholder in person in connection with his business or profession as stated herein.”
The second Defendant contended that K.’s car was not being used solely for his own purposes but was being used for his own purposes and the purposes of B. Ltd. The second Defendant contended further that insurers were not given notice of “proceedings” within R.T.A., 1960, Sect. 207 (2) (a).
HELD:-
During the trial Lawton, J., raised the preliminary issue: Whether the Claimant had any cause of action against the Defendant Motor Insurer Bureau. The arrangement between K and B Co was a practical business arrangement and amounted to a legally binding contract; that K was driving whilst uninsured and should have been insured in respect of the carriage of P and that P was entitled to judgment against the Defendant bureau. His Lordship held that the Bureau could be sued in the circumstances arising in this case.
The judgement by Lawton, J. is summarised as follows:
(1) that arrangement between K. and B. Ltd. was a practical business arrangement and amounted to a legally binding contract;
that K. was not using his car within the description of use covered by the policy and was driving uninsured;
that K. should have been insured in respect of carriage of Claimant;
(2) that, on those findings, Claimant’s claim against second Defendant could not arise;
(obiter) that “proceedings” in Sect. 207 (2) (a) of R.T.A., 1960, meant beginning of legal proceedings and mere notification of making of claim was not sufficient
Related posts:
