Lewington v Motor Insurers’ Bureau  EWHC 2848 (Comm)
The MIB’s rejection
The arbitral appeal
- This model of dumper truck was capable of road use;
- Unusual vehicles and engineering plant of this kind are capable of being registered and taxed for road use and that ‘It may have been possible to render the [road] use of the Bell lawful’;
- An even wider model of the Bell articulated dump truck had been registered for road use and insured for road use at China Clay quarries in Cornwall.
|A Bell B30D articulated dumper truck|
Appeal to the High Court
The domestic law
EU law consistent construction
Pfeiffer is to Marleasing what a Bell B30D dumper truck is to a Toyota Hilux pickup truck: they have the same function, only one of them does it on a far more impressive scale.
Pfeiffer extends this EU law consistent construction principle to the all national rules and laws. Furthermore, it imposes on national courts a legal presumption that the domestic law or rule is intended to fully implement the EU directive it is supposed to transpose. This has important implications for the UtDA and the Uninsured Drivers Agreements. If the government to seek to argue that these private law agreements between the Secretary of State for Transport and the MIB are not justiciable rules intended to confer civil rights on individuals then it would risk an infringement action by the European Commission. This is because the EU legal certainty principle insists that every directives must be properly implemented in this way to ensure that the rights intended to be conferred are accessible and intelligible. Accordingly, the House of Lords ruling in White v White & MIB  UKHL 9 (to the effect that because the MIB schemes are private law agreements they are not subject to a Marleasing style construction) is overruled by Pfeiffer.