Following the acceptance by the claimant of a payment under Part 36, the defendants applied to the Judge on the detailed assessment of costs for an order that they should be liable to pay only 25 per cent of the assessed costs.

The Judge refused this order. The defendants appealed and the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected their arguments saying that a claimant who accepted a defendant’s payment into court was entitled to 100 per cent of his assessed costs, and the Costs Judge had no jurisdiction before embarking on a detailed assessment to order the defendant to pay only a proportion of the costs ultimately assessed to be payable.

Lahey -v- Pirelli Tyres Limited. Court of Appeal, 19 February 2007, Times Law Reports

Widow overcomes MIB exception

Clause 6 (1) (e) of the MIB Agreement 1999 excepts the Bureau from liability where a claim is made by a claimant who, at the time of the use giving rise to the liability, was voluntarily allowing himself to be carried in the vehicle knowing it was being used without there being a proper contract of insurance. But what is the position in a fatal case? Should the widow be punished for the knowledge of the husband?

The Court of Appeal said no. The claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 by the widow of a victim of a traffic accident, killed by a negligent driver who the victim knew was uninsured, had to be satisfied by the MIB. The plain words of the 1999 agreement clearly did not apply the exception to a separate claim brought by the widow.

Phillips -v- Rafiq and Another. Court of Appeal, 21 February 2007, Times Law Report