header-logo header-logo

Motor Insurers’ Bureau

14 June 2007
Issue: 7277 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Byrne v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2007] EWHC 1268 (QB), [2007] All ER (D) 03 (Jun)

This case concerned the limitation period for the liability of the MIB to satisfy judgments against untraced drivers where the injured party is a minor. This scheme is intended to implement Council Directive (EEC) 84/5. Under the scheme, the limitation period is, in all cases, three years.

Held: the procedure relied on by the UK as implementing the Directive should be subject to a limitation period no less favourable than that which applies to the commencement of proceedings by minors for personal injury in tort against a traced driver (under s 28 of the Limitation Act 1980).

Although the Directive is, in principle, capable of having direct effect, the MIB is not an emanation of the state and so the Directive cannot be enforced directly against it. However, the UK is in sufficiently serious breach of the terms of the Directive so as to give rise, in principle, to a claim for damages.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll