The Gazette 1964/67

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