The Court of Appeal has dismissed a passenger’s appeal against a finding that he knew the driver of the car he was travelling in was uninsured. It said the High Court had made no material error in assessing the conflicting evidence and provisionally proposed that the passenger’s claim be dismissed against the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI), rather than dismissed altogether.
Janvier Tumusabeyezu was seriously injured when a car driven by Daniel Muresan crashed near Mullingar, County Westmeath, on 26 June 2017. The car was uninsured, untaxed and driven without a licence. The MIBI was named as a defendant because no insurance policy covered Muresan’s driving.
The High Court heard the case as a preliminary issue: whether an exclusion in the 2009 MIBI Agreement applied. Under clause 5.2, the MIBI had to prove that an injured passenger voluntarily entered the vehicle and knew there was no approved insurance policy covering its use. The High Court found that Muresan had told passengers before they set off for a festival that he had no insurance or driving licence. It concluded that Tumusabeyezu knew the car was uninsured.
Tumusabeyezu denied hearing such a disclosure. Two other passengers also said they did not recall or denied that the conversation took place. Muresan said he had told the group. The High Court considered those accounts alongside evidence about the occupants’ conduct after the crash, inconsistencies in testimony and the witnesses’ relationships and interests. The Court of Appeal said those were matters the trial judge was entitled to weigh, and that the judge had explained his reasoning.
The appeal court stressed that it could review whether the trial judge had made a significant or material error, but could not rehear the evidence or substitute its own view of which witness to believe. It also noted that the trial judge’s comment that expired vehicle discs would have made the lack of insurance obvious did not form part of his reasoning; the appeal court described that proposition as contestable.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal said the High Court’s preliminary finding supported dismissal of the claim against the MIBI, but did not explain dismissal of the claim against Muresan. It provisionally proposed an order dismissing the claim against the MIBI and indicated that the defendants appeared entitled to appeal costs, to be adjudicated if not agreed. Either side could seek a brief supplemental hearing within 21 days to argue for a different order. In default of such an application, the proposed order would be made.