Hurley v Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Miss Justice Carroll
• Judgment Date: 05 March 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1993 WJSC-HC 3793
• Docket Number: 1992/203 J.R.
• Date: 05 March 1993

HURLEY v. MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU OF IRELAND

BETWEEN

GERALDINE HURLEY

APPLICANT

AND

THE MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU OF IRELAND

DEFENDANT

AND

LIAM O'DONNELL, JAMES O'DONNELL, LIAM DUNNE, PETER DUNNE ANDTERESA COLDWELL

NOTICE PARTIES

1993 WJSC-HC 3793

1992/203 J.R.

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU

Compensation

Payment - Refusal - Decision - Reasons - Sufficiency - Criteria for decision not stated - (1992/203 JR - Carroll J. - 5/3/93)

|Hurley v. Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland|

TRIBUNAL

Decision

Reasons - Statement - Sufficiency - Compensation - Payment - Refusal - Grounds - Belief that applicant had not suffered serious and permanent disablement - (1992/203 JR - Carroll J. - 5/3/93)

|Hurley v. Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland|

Citations:

BOWES V MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU OF IRELAND (MIBI) 1989 IR 225

CREEDON, STATE V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1989 ILRM 104

1 Note of Judgment of Miss Justice Carrolldelivered the 5th day of March 1993.

2 The Applicant has challenged by way of Judicial Review a decision of the Council of the M.I.B.I., made on the 4th of May 1992, refusing to make an ex gratia award to her for injuries received in a motor accident on the 26th of March 1988. She was a passenger in a car which was hit head-on by a stolen car. The driver of the stolen car was neverapprehended.

3 She applied under the relevant provision of the 1964 M.I.B.I. Agreement (since superseded) which deals withuntraced motorists. As explained in the correspondence by theM.I.B.I.:-

"For accidents arising prior to the 31/12/88 the liability of the Bureau does not extend to the compensation of any person who may suffer injury resulting from the use of a vehicle, the owner or driver of which cannot be traced. The Bureau does not however necessarily refuse to act in those cases. Where a person has sustained serious and permanent disablement or has died as a result of an injury and there is in the view of the Bureau reasonable certainty that the disablement or death was caused by the negligent use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, the owner or driver of which cannot be traced, then the Bureau will at their descretion give sympathetic consideration to making some ex gratiapayment."

4 In the crash the Applicant fractured the second cervical vertebrae and had to wear a halo vest to keep her neck immobile. This was removed in May 1988. The cervical vertebrae united in a good position. She was left with indented scars in both temples from the halo. As a result of the accident she has degenerative changes at level C 2/3 in her cervical spine. In March 1990, Mr. Fogarty, the Orthopaedic Surgeon, said that on the balance of probabilities she is going to have pain in her neck in the future. In November 1990 he said that she will continue to have pain in her neck indefinitely. Mr. Barry Bresnihan,Consultant Rheumatologist, said on the 5th of November 1991 that she will continue to experience recurring symptoms over an extended period of time and has some permanent loss of movement particularly on rotation to the left. Some further improvement will follow with time but occasional symptoms may continue to recur and full range of movement may not fully recover.

5 Concerning her scars, Mr. Matt McHugh, Plastic Surgeon, said on the 19th of December 1990 that the two scars are noticeable and disfiguring. They could not be got rid of completely but the dipped indented appearance could be improved with plastic surgery. There would be no improvement unless surgery was carried out.

6 The Council who had previously rejected an application from the Applicant (which is not in issue here) reconsidered the matter on the 4th of May 1992. By letter dated the 5th of May 1992, the M.I.B.I. said that it was still the Council's unanimous decision that they would not make an ex gratia award on the evidence made available.

7 When they were asked for reasons, the Council replied by letter dated the 8th of July 1992. This referred to their first decision of the 10th of June 1991 and the additional medical evidence submitted. It said the medical reports were considered with photographs. The letter said:-

"The general view was that there were no abnormal...