Automated Summary
Key Facts
Ms Bianca Cameron was injured in a collision with a Nissan Micra on 26 May 2013. The driver fled the scene and has not been identified. The registered keeper (Mr Naveed Hussain) refused to identify the driver and was convicted of failing to do so. The car was insured under a policy issued to a fictitious person (Mr Nissar Bahadur), with neither the keeper nor the driver insured to drive the vehicle. The case addresses whether a plaintiff can sue an unnamed defendant in hit-and-run scenarios under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Court of Appeal's decision to permit suing the unknown driver, emphasizing the need for valid service or dispensation under CPR 6.16.
Issues
The primary legal issue is whether it is permissible to sue an unnamed driver in a hit-and-run accident under UK law, particularly when the driver cannot be identified and the insurer is not directly liable under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The case examines the statutory framework for motor insurance, the role of the Motor Insurers' Bureau, and the procedural rules governing service of proceedings against unnamed defendants. It also considers whether the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103/EC requires a direct right of action against insurers for untraced drivers.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal's order, and reinstated the District Judge's decision. The court held that a person who cannot be identified (such as an untraced hit-and-run driver) cannot be sued under a pseudonym or description unless service of the claim form can be properly effected or dispensed with. The decision emphasized that service must bring the proceedings to the defendant's attention, aligning with principles of natural justice.
- The court determined that the Road Traffic Act 1988's statutory framework does not permit suing an unknown driver who cannot be identified, as the insurer's liability is contingent on satisfying a judgment against the driver, not on a direct right of action. The decision clarified that the Motor Insurers' Bureau, not the insurer, is the proper avenue for compensation in such cases.
- The court rejected the argument that the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103/EC requires a direct right of action against the insurer for the underlying wrong. It concluded that the Directive does not mandate such a right in this context, and the UK's existing scheme (via the Motor Insurers' Bureau) complies with the Directive's requirements.
Remedies
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal's order which had permitted suing an unnamed driver, and reinstated the District Judge's summary judgment for the insurer. This remedy overturned the lower court's permission to amend the claim form to substitute the unnamed driver and restored the original dismissal of Ms Cameron's claim against the insurer.
Legal Principles
The court held that a person cannot be made subject to the jurisdiction of the court without sufficient notice to enable them to be heard, a fundamental principle of natural justice. This requires that service of proceedings must be reasonably likely to bring the claim to the defendant's attention, ensuring procedural fairness.
Precedent Name
- Clarke v Vedel
- Porter v Freudenberg
- Abbey National Plc v Frost
- EMI Records Ltd v Kudhail
- South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell
- Friern Barnet Urban District Council v Adams
- Abela v Baadarani
- Bloomsbury Publishing Group Plc v News Group Newspapers Ltd
Cited Statute
- Road Traffic Act 1988
- European Communities Act 1972
- Civil Procedure Rules
- Sixth Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103/EC
Judge Name
- Lord Reed
- Lady Black
- Lord Carnwath
- Lord Hodge
- Lord Sumption
Passage Text
- The effect of the latter subsection is that an insurer who has issued a policy in respect of the use of a vehicle is liable on a judgment, even where it was obtained against a person such as the driver of the Micra in this case who was not insured to drive it.
- One does not, however, identify an unknown person simply by referring to something that he has done in the past. 'The person unknown driving vehicle registration number Y598 SPS who collided with vehicle registration number KG03 ZJZ on 26 May 2013', does not identify anyone. It does not enable one to know whether any particular person is the one referred to.
- Nothing in the Directive requires the United Kingdom to recognise a right of that kind. Indeed, it is questionable whether it would be consistent with article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights regarding the fairness of legal proceedings.