The High Court has allowed, subject to two conditions, a proposed amendment that could expose the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) to a claim for an unsatisfied judgment against a second defendant in a personal injuries action. The court did not decide whether the MIBI is liable or whether the amended claim will succeed.
The case arises from a 15 June 2012 accident. The pleaded account is that the plaintiff was on a trailer attached to a stationary truck when a vehicle driven by the first defendant collided with it. The plaintiff allegedly fell, and a tractor tyre loaded on the trailer landed on him. The judgment describes his injuries as very severe.
The original claim alleged that the first defendant caused the collision and that the second defendant, the plaintiff’s father, was responsible for loading and parking the truck and trailer and managing the business premises. The MIBI had initially been asked to satisfy any unsatisfied judgment against the first defendant. Her vehicle had insurance, and her insurers responded to the claim.
The plaintiff later sought to extend the proposed MIBI claim to cover a judgment against either defendant. His submissions were that the second defendant was an uninsured driver because Liberty Insurance had purported to void a policy covering the truck, citing alleged non-disclosure or misrepresentation. The insurer’s correspondence also said the claim had not been notified until December 2020, about eight years after the accident. These matters were disputed: the MIBI had not accepted that the policy was properly avoided or that the circumstances brought the claim within its agreement.
The MIBI opposed the amendment, citing delay, prejudice and questions about whether the claim could succeed. The judge found that the proposed change would radically enlarge the case against it and that delay created a risk of prejudice. But the MIBI had been involved from the outset and had investigated the accident mechanics, including serving a notice of indemnity and contribution on the second defendant in November 2020. The judge was not satisfied that the proposed claim must necessarily fail at this stage, leaving the difficult legal questions for trial.
Leave to amend was made conditional on copies of contemporaneous records about the 2012 insurance application and policy, and the truck’s ownership registration after its importation from Scotland, still existing and being made available to the MIBI. The plaintiff’s solicitor must also circulate a revised draft by 21 March 2022, setting out the precise basis of the claim and particulars about truck ownership and the policy’s issue and purported invalidation.
The order did not decide the overall question of delay in prosecuting the proceedings. The case was listed for case management on 28 March 2022, when the costs of the amendment motion were also to be addressed.