National law provision for victims of uninsured drivers breaches EU law, the High Court has held
In Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] EWHC 1785 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 31 (Jun), Mr Justice Jay criticised the Department for Transport for its provisions within the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999. He held that Delaney, who was a passenger in a vehicle driven by an uninsured driver, is entitled to damages for the injuries he sustained because UK provisions breach EU law.
Delivering his judgment, Jay J said: “The defendant is guilty of a serious breach of Community law in circumstances where its room for manoeuvre under the Directives was closely circumscribed.
“It did not have a wide discretion. Its obligations under the Directives, and their relevant confines, were quite clear, and—in the absence of knowing the actual reason for this policy decision—the best that may be said is that the defendant decided to run the risk, which was significant, knowing of its existence…I conclude with little hesitation that the defendant's breach is so serious that, subject to the final issue of causation, it must pay compensation to the claimant under the Francovich principle.”
Under the Francovich principle, individuals can claim damages under a Directive regardless of their country’s failure to properly implement it.
Solicitor Nicholas Bevan, who has argued previously in NLJ that government provision on uninsured drivers is unlawful, said: “It is difficult to overstate the importance of this robust ruling by a High Court judge that effectively trashes a Court of Appeal ruling on the same case.
“Although Delaney concerns a discrete point, when read in the light of the Churchill Court of Appeal rulings [Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson Case C-442/10], it demonstrates that successive governments have breached the minimum standards of protection required under the Motor Insurance Directives more than once and in the Delaney case, deliberately so. Furthermore, these are not isolated breaches.”
Bevan said the case could spark the “most wide ranging reform to motor insurer liability for 80 years”.
