“Each Member State shall set up or authorise a body with the task of providing compensation, at least up to the limits of the insurance obligation[,] for damage to property or personal injuries caused by an unidentified vehicle or a vehicle for which the insurance obligation… has not been satisfied. This provision shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to regard compensation by that body as subsidiary or non-subsidiary and the right to make provision for the settlement of claims between that body and the person or persons responsible for the accident and other insurers or social security bodies required to compensate the victim in respect of the same accident. The victim may in any case apply directly to the body which, on the basis of information provided at its request by the victim, shall be obliged to give him a reasoned reply regarding the payment of any compensation. However, Member States may exclude the payment of compensation by that body in respect of persons who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury when the body can prove that they knew it was uninsured. Member States may limit or exclude the payment of compensation by that body in the event of damage to property by an unidentified vehicle. They may also authorize, in the case of damage to property caused by an uninsured vehicle an excess of not more than 500 ECU for which the victim may be responsible. Furthermore, each Member State shall apply its laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the payment of compensation by this body, without prejudice to any other practice which is more favourable to the victim.”
“It is settled case-law that in the absence of Community rules governing the matter it is for the domestic legal system of each member state to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, however, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of equivalence) and do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (the principle of effectiveness)...”
“Right of Appeal Where an applicant is not willing to accept – (a) a decision or determination made by MIB under clause 7 or a part thereof… he may give notice…that he wishes to submit the matter to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of clauses 19 to 25.”
“Referral of Disputes to Arbitrator Any dispute between the applicant and MIB concerning a decision, determination or requirement made by MIB under the terms of this Agreement, other than a dispute relating to MIB’s decision for which provision is made by clause 18, shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator.”
“The arbitrator may, having regard to the subject matter of the proceedings and in an appropriate case, order that his fee or the costs of the proceedings (as determined according to clause 10(1)(b) of, and the Schedule to, this Agreement) or both his fee and those costs shall be paid by one party or allocated between the parties in such proportions as he thinks fit.”
“… being made for the purposes of Article 1(4) of [the Second Directive]… (a) is intended to confer a benefit on an applicant but on no other person, and (b) to confer such benefit subject to the terms and conditions set out herein.”
“The arbitrator may, having regard to the subject matter of the proceedings and in an appropriate case, order that his fee or the costs of the proceedings (as determined according to clause 10(1)(a) of, and the Schedule to, this Agreement) or both his fee and those costs shall be paid by one party or allocated between the parties in such proportions as he thinks fit.”
“Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract... may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if – (a) the contract expressly provides that he may, or (b) ... the term purports to confer a benefit on him.”
“You will note in particular the statement made by Paul Rendell, which paints a rather pessimistic view of liability from your client’s perspective. As soon as we have interviewed the remaining witnesses we will be in a position to revert to you with our views on liability.”
“[Glenda Crawford] asked for a schedule of loss. The request was intended to elicit from the Claimant what heads of loss would now be claimed. If that schedule had been forthcoming, [Mrs Crawford] would have carried out an investigation of the losses and obtained evidence to calculate them.”
“Let us have a schedule of loss so we can consider that with liability”
“Please let us know whether you have full details of all losses so we can proceed to offer...”
“The procedure for obtaining compensation is for Instructing Solicitors to submit the evidence they have and a written submission on liability and quantum. If the MIB make a poor finding on either the Claimant should appeal to the arbitrator.”