Masterson v Granfield Associates Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: BLAYNEY J.
• Judgment Date: 10 November 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1995 WJSC-HC 1141
• Date: 10 November 1993
• Court: High Court

1995 WJSC-HC 1141

THE HIGH COURT

DUBLIN CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

Record No. 6731/92

D8045

MASTERSON v. GRANFIELD ASSOCIATES LTD

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 76 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961 AND IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS MASTERSON

Plaintiff

and

GRANFIELD ASSOCIATES LIMITED AND JOHN DUNNE

Defendants

and

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF IRELAND PLC

Notice Party

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S76

Synopsis:

CONTRACT

Rescission

Insurer - Policy - Cancellation - Method - Registered letter giving seven days notice of cancellation - Insured's failure to call for letter - Whether insurer to prove receipt by insured of actual notice of cancellation - Policy validly cancelled - Road Traffic Act, 1961, s. 76 - (Appeal from the Circuit Court - Blayney J. - 10/3/93)

|Masterson v. Granfield Associates Ltd.|

INSURANCE

Policy

Cancellation - Method - Contract - Terms - Compliance - Notice of cancellation - Registered letter giving seven days notice of cancellation - Insured's failure to call for letter - Whether insurer to prove receipt by insured of actual notice of cancellation - Policy validly cancelled - (Appeal from the Circuit Court - Blayney J. - 10/3/93)

|Masterson v. Granfield Associates Ltd.|

NOTICE

Insurance

Policy - Cancellation - Method - Contract - Terms - Compliance - Notice of cancellation - Registered letter giving seven days notice of cancellation - Insured's failure to call for letter - Whether insurer to prove receipt by insured of actual notice of cancellation - Policy validly cancelled - (Appeal from the Circuit Court - Blayney J. - 10/3/93)

|Masterson v. Granfield Associates Ltd.|

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 10th day of November 1993 by BLAYNEY J.

2 The issue on this appeal is between the plaintiff and the notice party (to which I shall refer as ICI). The facts are not in dispute and might be summarised as follows.

3 On the 20th July, 1992 the plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendants in the sum of £6,283.14 in respect of damage to a motor vehicle sustained in a collision with a motor vehicle owned by the first-named defendant and driven by the second-named defendant. The plaintiff was unable to execute the judgment against either of the defendants.

4 The collision in which the plaintiff's motor vehicle was damaged occurred on the 13th June, 1991. On the 10th October, 1989 ICI had issued to the first-named defendant an approved policy of insurance in respect of all motor vehicles the property of the first-named defendant and that policy had been renewed for one year from the 10th October, 1990. In the ordinary course of events it would accordingly have been in force on the 13th June, 1991.

5 The premium under the policy was payable monthly by instalments. The first-named defendant failed to pay the instalment due in November, 1990 and notwithstanding receiving a number of reminders from ICI failed to pay any further instalments so that on the 28th February, 1991 there was a sum of £20,840.40 due to ICI in respect of unpaid premium and on that date ICI wrote to the first-named defendant giving them notice that they had no alternative but to cancel the policy unless they received a remittance of £20,840.40 by return. The policy issued by ICI contained a condition in the following terms:

"8. The Corporation may cancel this policy by sending seven days notice by registered letter to the insured at his last known address and in such event will return to the insured the premium less the pro rata portion thereof for the period the policy has been in force."

6 In pursuance of the power contained in this clause ICI wrote to the first-named defendant by registered post on the 14th March, 1991 giving them notice that all cover would cease from midnight on the 24th March, 1991. The registered letter was addressed to the first-named defendant at 92 Tyrconnell Road, Inchicore, Dublin 8, which was the last known address of the first-named defendant and there is no dispute in regard to this. The...