Seddon v Binions [1978]
- Reported: [1978] 1 LLOYD’S REP 381
- Year: 1978
- Court: Court of Appeal
FACTS:
On a Sunday in November 1969 a father was assisting his son in his business of carpet laying, and agreed to take the son’s employee, who complained of toothache, to his home or to a dentist when the father himself went home to lunch. The father drove the employee in the son’s car, and during the journey was involved in an accident in which one person was killed and another injured.
The administratrix of the estate of the deceased and the injured person brought actions for damages against the father and his son, and the actions were subsequently compromised on payment by the son’s insurers of a total sum of £48,000. The father, who held in respect of his own car a policy of insurance which entitled him to drive a car not owned by him for ‘social domestic and pleasure purposes’, brought third party proceedings against his insurers in which he claimed to be indemnified under the policy against the plaintiffs’ claims. The insurers denied liability, contending that at the material time the father was using the son’s car for the purpose of the son’s business.
Jupp J dismissed the father’s claim against the insurers on the ground that the car was being used for two purposes and taking the son’s employee home, was not covered by the policy.
The Father appealed.
HELD:-
The appeal was dismissed. It was held that the essential character or primary purpose of the journey during which the accident occurred was that the father was using the car to take the son’s employee either home or to a dentist and such user was for a business purpose of the son and not for a ‘social domestic and pleasure’ purpose. Therefore accordingly the claim against the insurance company failed.
It was held further that if the right view be that there was a dual purpose to the journey, since one of the two purposes, namely, to get the son’s employee home, was not an insured purpose, the claim failed for that reason also.
Per Roskill LJ held in his judgment ‘whether an insured vehicle is being used for social domestic and pleasure purposes cannot be predicated by firm principle; it depends on the facts of the particular case’.
Megaw LJ also agreed that the appeal should be dismissed. Megaw LJ found it was the essential character, or the primary purpose, of the relevant journey was one which could not properly or fairly be described as use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes. Megaw found the Court of First Instance was right to analyse two separate purposes of the use of the car at the time of the accident. Megaw LJ agreed with the judge that at any rate one of those purposes was one that could not be described as being for social, domestic or pleasure purposes and held that on either view the appeal must fail.
Browne LJ found that if the essential purpose approach is adopted the dangers would be at any rate greatly reduced. Browne LJ held ‘I have no doubt that the judge came to a correct conclusion, and therefore I agree that the appeal must be dismissed’.
The decision of Jupp was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Related posts:
