The Secretary of State to appeal the Delaney decision
Hammond holding back the tide |
It is official and it comes first hand from the Department
for Transport: it is in denial!
In Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] EWHC 1785 (QB) the court exposed the DfT for flouting superior European
Community law in its implementation the European Motor Insurance
Directives. See earlier post: DfT exposed for defying EU Law.
The Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999 is notorious for its
oppressive and unjust strike out clauses and its unlawful restrictions on the
Motor Insurers Bureau’s liability to compensate motor accident victims. Although the grounds of appeal are not known,
it could hardly have chosen weaker ground to contest the superior authority of
the Motor Insurance Directives and the long line of Court of Justice rulings
interpreting them.
The Delaney case comes at a very embarrassing time for the
DfT as its entire transposition of the Motor Insurance Directives is under scrutiny
from the European Commission. The DfT has
consistently maintained the line that it has fully implemented the Directives;
whereas our national law provision in this area is riddled with unlawful
restrictions and exclusions that serve the commercial interests of motor
insurers.
The man at the Ministry responsible for this farce is
Stephen Hammond MP, the Under Secretary of State for Transport. Someone needs to explain the rule of law to
him and the fact that Parliament has surrendered part of its sovereignty to the
European Union on our accession.
In the
words of the great Lord Denning:
‘The
Treaty [of Rome, 1957] does not touch any of the matters which concern
solely England and the people in it. These are still governed by
English law. They are not affected by the Treaty. But when we come to matters
with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the
estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back, Parliament has decreed
that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law. It is equal in force to
any statute.’
H.P.
Bulmer Ltd v J. Bollinger SA [1974] Ch 401 at 418
No comments:
Post a Comment