The Court of Appeal has finally given judgment on the vexed issue of the impact of minor motoring offences on motor insurance claims.
For several years High Court and county court judges in both England and Wales and Northern Ireland had taken different approaches to claims for compensation against motor insurers where, at the time of the claim, the claimant had been committing a motoring offence. Many such claims had however been dismissed on the basis that they were tainted by the claimants’ own unlawful behaviour.
In Ali v HSF [2024] EWCA 1479, a motorist brought a claim after his vehicle was damaged by the defendant. The defendant’s insurer ascertained that he had been habitually driving without an MOT. The county court judge held that this was fatal to his claim for the cost of hiring a replacement car, as that would be compensating the loss of his unlawful use of his own car. An appeal to the High Court was dismissed, but today the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. It held that the Patel v Mirza requirement for the law to take a proportionate response to illegality meant that, in general, claimants bringing motor claims should not be limited in their civil remedies by the fact they were committing minor motoring offences at the time of their loss. Such cases were proportionately dealt with by the criminal law, and not by any sanction in their civil claim. The court stressed that its approach was a general one, which did not apply only in the case of driving without an MOT.
This case will bring welcome certainty on a long-running source of satellite litigation in the civil courts.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
Benjamin Williams KC and Ben Smiley acted for the successful Appellant instructed by Bond Turner.
