About this case:

• Citation:
  [2023] IESCDET 63
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Supreme Court

Delivering a determination in the case, the Supreme Court panel stated that the case raised significant issues relating to the operation of the Road Traffic Act and the ambit of the mandatory motor insurance obligation. As such, it was necessary to hear the appeal in the case.

Background

In December 2013, an employee of Urban and Rural Recycling Limited suffered very serious injuries when a plastic wheelie bin containing glass fell on him. At the time, he was using a mechanical lift attached to a recycling truck.

The employee issued personal injuries proceedings against Urban. The company had taken out two insurance policies over the vehicle. The first policy was with RSA Insurance was a general employer’s liability policy. The second policy was with Zurich Insurance and was a motor insurance policy.

The proceedings related to which insurance policy covered the accident. The key issue in the case was whether the liability to the employee was one that required an insurance policy under the Road Traffic Acts. As such, the parties brought a special case pursuant to Order 34 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

In the High Court, it was determined that Urban’s liability to the employee was required to be insured under the Road Traffic Acts and, as such, Urban was entitled to an indemnity from Zurich.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the liability under the Road Traffic Acts was in respect of the use of a vehicle. The court concluded that the employee was the user and the liability of Urban under the Road Traffic Acts was a “vicarious liability as the owner of the vehicle for use of the vehicle” by the employee.

However, the court reasoned that, since the employee “could not have been legally liable to pay damages to himself, [Urban] could not have incurred any vicarious liability”. As such, the court held that the liability was not one which was required to be insured under the Road Traffic Acts.

The Court of Appeal decision meant that RSA was required to indemnify Urban in respect of the accident. RSA applied for leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Leave to appeal

RSA outlined that the Court of Appeal judgment was predicated on the assumption that the employee was the sole user of the vehicle and that he could have no civil liability to himself. It was also argued that the case raised important issues regarding the scope and extent of the compulsory insurance obligations.

In particular, it was said that it was important to determine whether Urban was a “user” of the vehicle within the meaning of section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. Further, it was necessary to determine whether the 1961 Act operated to exclude the civil liability of one user to another user raising out of the use of the vehicle from mandatory insurance requirements.

Another issue of importance, it was said, related to the EU Motor Insurance Directives. RSA said that it was necessary to determine whether a person who alights from a rubbish truck to lift and tip a wheelie bin was a “driver” within the meaning of the EU Directives. Directive 2009/103/EC provided for mandatory insurance cover in respect of all injuries to “all passengers, other than the driver, arising out of the use of a vehicle”.

The court accepted that the appeal raised significant and important issues relating to the Road Traffic Acts and the ambit of mandatory motor insurance. It was noted that these matters had not been the subject of a reserved judgment from the Supreme Court and the issues had obvious implications for all road users.

Moreover, the court accepted that the case raised potentially novel issues regarding the proper interpretations of the EU Directives. In this context, Ireland was required to ensure that national legislation was appropriately construed in light of EU law obligations (Friends of Irish Environment v. An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 53).

Conclusions

In the circumstances, the court granted leave to appeal in the case. It was said that the precise questions to be determined in the appeal could be refined at the case management stage.

Urban and Recycling Limited and Anor. Zurich Insurance plc [2023] IESCDET 63