The Supreme Court has referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union about whether the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) is an “emanation of the State” for EU law purposes. The Court did not decide that question or determine which party must bear the compensation liability.
The reference arises from a 1996 crash in which Elaine Farrell was injured while travelling on the floor of a van driven by Alan Whitty. The judgment says Whitty was at fault, was uninsured for injury to her and did not have the means to compensate her. At the time, Irish law did not require insurance for a passenger in the rear of a van without seats. The judgment records that Ireland had failed to transpose the relevant EU directive requirement in time.
Farrell has since received compensation through arrangements between the parties. The live dispute in the Irish proceedings is whether the MIBI or the State parties—the Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General—must bear responsibility for the payment. Farrell and Whitty took no part in this Supreme Court appeal; the MIBI appealed the High Court decision, which had held it was an emanation of the State and liable to compensate Farrell.
The MIBI argued that it is a private company whose responsibilities arise from its agreement with the Minister, and that it lacks State control and special powers. Ireland argued that the MIBI has an exclusive role in dealing with claims involving uninsured or unidentified drivers, that insurers must belong to it to write motor insurance in Ireland, and that the State controls the scope of its responsibilities through the agreement and law.
The Supreme Court set out questions for the EU court on how to apply the test in Foster v British Gas. It asked whether the test’s elements must be met together or whether one may suffice; whether there is an underlying principle for assessing the factors; and whether transferring broad responsibilities to a body is enough, or whether special powers or direct State control or supervision are also required.
The judgment is a preliminary reference seeking the EU court’s assistance. It expresses no view on the answers. The unresolved classification will determine which side bears the liability at issue; the Supreme Court did not revisit the compensation amount or order a new payment.