header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 June 2007
Issue: 7277 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Motor Insurers’ Bureau

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
NLJ this week: Diamond rings and broken promises

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: The battle over medical report fees intensifies
Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll