Smith v Stratton & Anor
Decision date: 8 December 2015
Neutral citation: Neutral citation not available
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Insurance classification confidence: high
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this overview: medium
This appeal concerned whether the Motor Insurers’ Bureau was liable to meet a passenger’s personal injury claim after a crash when the insured driver drove off from police. The central issue was whether the claimant’s participation in a joint criminal enterprise and the driver’s act of making off to evade lawful apprehension meant the claim was excluded by the common-law ex turpi causa maxim and by clause 6.1(iii) of the MIB Agreement. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the judge’s findings that the four occupants were engaged in a joint enterprise, that the driver made off to evade police, and that those conclusions justified applying the maxim and clause 6.1(iii).
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: medium
Where, on the facts found, a claimant participated in a joint criminal enterprise and the injury was a direct result of the vehicle being used to evade lawful apprehension, the court applied the ex turpi causa maxim to bar recovery and held that clause 6.1(iii) of the 1999 MIB Agreement was engaged.
Obiter dicta
Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.
AI confidence in this obiter summary: medium
The judgment notes (with no determination) that any incompatibility of the MIB Agreement with EU motor-insurance directives might give rise to a damages claim against the state, but that this issue did not affect the present proceedings.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from selected parts of a longer judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted from the judgment, which may omit additional factual findings or reasoning material to the decision.