O’Neill v O’Brien; O’Neill v Motor Insurers Bureau [1997]
- Reported: [1997] P.I.Q.R. P223; THE TIMES, MARCH 21, 1997, CA
- Year: 1997
- Court: Court of Appeal
FACTS:
A youth was convicted of driving a motor cycle whilst under age and without a crash helmet and of using a motor vehicle without insurance.
On appeal he contended that the Italijet motor cycle he was riding at the time of the alleged offences was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972 s.190(1).
A Claimant could apply under Order 37, rule 4 of County Court Rules 1981 to set aside a judgment obtained in default against a defendant.
HELD:
The Court of Appeal held in dismissing an appeal by the second defendant, the Motor Insurers Bureau against the decision of Judge Bernstein at Birkenhead County Court on 30th April 1996 to uphold the setting aside by a district judge of a judgement in default obtained by the plaintiff, Michael O’Neil, against the first defendant, Christopher O’Brien following a road traffic accident.
Italijet was a two-wheeled vehicle propelled by a 22 cc internal combustion engine with a seat and handle bars. The justices had sufficient grounds therefore for deciding that it fell within s.190(1) and the appeal was dismissed.
The Master of the Rolls referred to Order 37, rule 4 which was that there was no requirement that an application to set aside a judgement should be made by a particular party. However the MIB contended that the judgment was perfectly properly obtained, that the defendant had no defence and that in those circumstances it had not been appropriate for the court to set the judgment aside.
The Master of the Rolls in his judgement held that Order 37, rule 4 was deliberately drawn in wide terms to allow a Claimant or the court to set aside a judgment if it was appropriate to do so. It was true that the rule would normally be relied on by a defendant but it was not confined to applications by the defendants.
Master of the Rolls found that if the present judgment was not set aside then there would undoubtedly be an argument whether the MIB was under any liability. Further the MIB had been deprived of making any representations on the assessment of damages.
It was in everybody’s interest and certainly in the interests of justice that the judgment should be set aside so that a needless dispute of a technical nature should be avoided.
Related posts:
