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

08 JUN 2015

Moreno v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2015] EWHC 1002 (QB)

Road Traffic Accident – Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) – Damages – Compensation – Uninsured Greek Car – Jurisdiction Driver

High Court, Queen's Bench Division

 17 April 2015

Gilbart J


 In determining whether quantification of an injury caused by an uninsured driver in a European state ought to be governed by laws of England and Wales or the laws of the county where the injury was caused, the court was bound to follow precedent that quantification be under the laws of England and Wales despite a compelling argument that previous case law was decided erroneously.


 The claimant was injured by an uninsured driver whilst on holiday in Greece and suffered serious injury. A claim was brought against the defendant under regulation 13(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body Regulations) 2003  (SI 2003/37). The claimant submitted assessment of damages should be in accordance with the laws of England and Wales.

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
The Court of Appeal had previously held in Jacobs v MIB [2011] that for injuries suffered in another European state at the hands of an uninsured or unidentified driver, liability ought to be assessed under the law of the country where the injury was caused but compensation remained to be assessed under English and Welsh law.

The defendant submitted that Jacobs had been wrongly decided and that since Rome II had been introduced after reg 13, no law other than the law of the state where the damage occurred should apply and that the quantification of damages should be determined under the law of Greece.

The court found that the clear effect of reg 13 meant that the claim was to be assessed under the laws of England and Wales and that the court was bound by the previous decision of the Court of Appeal in Jacobs and was bound to conclude that the compensation should be assessed under the basis of the law of England and Wales.However, defendant’s arguments that Jacobs had been wrongly decided had considerable force.

Whilst the judge was bound by the Court of Appeal decision, a certificate to allow the defendants to appeal directly to the Supreme Court has now been given.

Joseph Carr & Louise Taylor, Anthony Gold