27 / 364
required to be covered by a policy of insurance
under Section 203 (3)
(a)
of the Road Traffic Act,
1960.
Held :
the plaintiff was entitled to recover from
the defendants the amount due under the unsatisfied
judgment against P, because
(i) although (per Lord Denning, M.R., and
Pearson, L.J.) P's liability to the plaintiff arose out
of a felony under S. 18 of the Offences against the
Person Act, 1861, yet
(per curiam}
the liability was
one " which was required to be covered by a policy
of insurance " under Section 203 (3)
(a)
of the Road
Traffic Act, 1960, and the plaintiff as the injured
third party, could have recovered from the insurers
under S. 207 of that Act even though P himself
would have been debarred
from
recovering;
accordingly, as P had not been insured, the defendants
were liable to the plaintiff. (Hardy
v.
M.I.B., 1964,
2 A.E.R. 742.)
Motor Insurers' bureau,
In Adams
v.
Andrews the plaintiff aged 21 claimed
damages against the defendant for injuries sustained
while a passenger in his car. The Court held that the
accident was entirely caused by the negligence of an
unidentified motorcyclist who had failed to stop
causing the defendant to swerve, mount the kerb and
overturn his car.
The motorcyclist and another
motorist who saw the accident drove on and were
never traced and the only evidence as to what
occurred was a written statement by an R.A.F.
corporal to the police. This man had also left the
country and efforts to trace him failed. Sachs J.,
held that on the evidence without the corporal's
statements some degree of blame would have
attached to the defendant but the corporal's state–
ments showed that the motorcyclist had started up,
accelerated to overtake two cars and went in a wide
arc well over to the other side of the road and then
back into the defendant's path. On this evidence
the Court held that the motorcyclist was solely to
blame and the action against the defendant had to be
dismissed.
The case disclosed some interesting
points regarding the Motor Insurers' Bureau. Had
the findings shown that the motorcyclist was three-
quarters to blame and the defendant one quarter the
result would have been
judgment against
the
defendant for £15,000.
Had there been such a
finding the defendant would have been financially
ruined as he was not insured against accidents to
passengers.
Secondly because of that insurance
position the plaintiff would probably have received
little of the £15,000. Thirdly the Motor Insurers'
Bureau would not have even considered making an
ex gratia
payment to the plaintiff. As it was, the
present situation was by no means satisfactory.
Under the current agreement with the Minister of
Transport the Bureau could decline to accept any
legal liability for damages suffered by anyone who
claimed against a hit and run driver who had not
been identified. They could sit back and do nothing.
Where, as in this case, there was a reasonable
certainty that a motor vehicle was involved and that
the claim would have succeeded if the driver had
been traced the Bureau would give sympathetic
consideration to making an
ex gratia
payment to the
victim but it seems that their power of discretion
was absolute.
It was regrettable that an injured
person had no right to recover damages because
judgment was against a driver who had not been
identified.
It merely enabled insurance companies
as a whole to have a potential avenue of escape from
liabilities which in principle they had accepted. The
Judge stated that two matters emerging from the
case were worthy of consideration from the legis–
lative point of view. First whether some steps could
be taken to oblige motorists and others to give their
names to the police after they had witnessed an
accident, secondly although he was not prepared to
criticise without knowing the full facts, it seemed
that the Motor Insurers' Bureau could decline
liability for making payments in hit and run cases.
Whatever might be the practice it was important
that the Bureau should not be in a position wholly
to decline liability merely because a motorist or
some other person who was under no duty to insure
against particular risks was also partly to blame. A
claim would be made against the Motor Insurers'
Bureau in this case and the Judge instructed the
solicitors to report to him in two months as to the
attitude which the Bureau adopted in case the Court
would wish to bring the matter to the attention of
some suitable authority. (Adams
v.
Andrews, The
Times Newspaper, 28th July, 1964.)
"
Respectable and Responsible."
Mr. Justice Ungoed-Thomas held that the assign–
ment of a lease, made on October 8th, 1963, to the
plaintiff, was not vitiated by reason of its being made
without the consent in writing of the defendant.
His Lordship said that the respondent was the free–
holder of the premises which were a workmen's
cafe and a dwellinghouse and the plaintiff claimed
that he was entitled to take an assignment of the lease
granted to him by the assignor on October 8th, 1963,
without the consent of the defendant. The lease,
which was made in 1947 for a term of 21 years at a
yearly rent of £160 contained a covenant that it would
not be assigned without the written consent of the
defendant, such consent not to be withheld by him
in favour of a respectable and responsible person.
On August 15th, 1963, the lessee applied to the