Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

PI and Civil Litigation

Law - practice - procedure

Anthony Gold Solicitors , 19 JUL 2017

Bianca Cameron v (1) Naveed Hussain (2) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 366

Bianca Cameron v (1) Naveed Hussain (2) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 366
Road Traffic – Negligence – Insurers – Unknown person - S151 Road Traffic Act

Court of Appeal

Gloster LJ, Lloyd Jones LJ and Cranston J

23 May 17


Summary 

A claimant who was injured in a hit and run accident, was permitted to amend proceedings to include a description of the defendant as “the person unknown.” Section 151 of The Road Traffic Act 1988 obliged the insurers to meet an unsatisfied judgment despite the defendant being unnamed.


Article continues below...
APIL Personal Injury

APIL Personal Injury

Law, Practice and Precedents

"my preferred first port of call for any query on the law or procedure" PI Focus

Available in Lexis®Library

Detail 

The claimant had been injured in a hit and run collision where the driver of the car was never identified. However, the registered keeper of the car was identified. There was an insurance policy on the car that covered one named individual, but not that of the registered keeper. In 2014 proceedings were issued against the register keeper of the car. When it became clear that the registered keeper was not the driver of the car, the insurers were added as defendants to the claim. The claimant sought to rely on the Road Traffic Act s.151 whereby it was obliged to satisfy any unsatisfied judgement against the registered keeper.

The insurer denied liability, the argument being that the policy being relied on did not cover the registered keeper. Since the driver of the car had not been identified the insurers sought summary judgment on its defence. In response, the motorist applied for permission to amend the claim form and particulars of claim by removing the registered keeper as first defendant and substituting it with “the person unknown”.

The district judge dismissed the claimant’s application and granted summary judgment in favour of the insurer.

The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, where three points of law were considered:

  1. Whether s.151 applied only where the driver could be named;
  2. Whether proceedings could only be issued against unnamed parties in exceptional circumstances;
  3. Whether the claimant was precluded from pursuing the unnamed driver because she could receive adequate remedy if a claim was submitted under the Motor Bureau Untraced Drivers’ Agreement (UTDA).

The Court of Appeal after consideration of previous case law and the CPR granted the claimant’s appeal and permission to substitute the first defendant to an unknown person. The Court held there was no reason in principle why in appropriate cases a claimant could not be allowed under the CPR to bring proceedings against an unnamed defendant who was suitably identified by an appropriate description. In addition, the Court were of the opinion that there was no reason an unnamed defendant could not be pursued for damages. The Court further held that the claimant had a substantive right to a judgment against the driver and a statutory right to payment by the insurers if the judgment was not satisfied and that it would be unjust to deprive the claimant of this remedy simply because there was an alternative remedy under the UTDA.

Comment

Some have argued that the ramification of the judgment will lead to the floodgates opening to fraudulent RTA claims. Whether this is a consequence of this judgement or not, it is clear that claimants involved in accidents with unknown drivers, where the insurers are identified, are unlikely to pursue a claim under the UTDA and instead pursue court proceedings due to the limited recoverability for damages and costs under the UTDA.

Judgment: Bianca Cameron v Naveed Hussain and Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 366.rtf

Blessing Ikemefuna and Kim Pryce, Anthony Gold 


This case summary appears in the forthcoming update of APIL Personal Injury: Law, Practice and PrecedentsFor details on how you can subscribe or take out a free online trial please call 0330 161 1234.