Latest News
Justice Achieved for British Tourists After Accident Abroad
27 October 2010
Today’s Court of Appeal ruling achieved by solicitors Russell Jones and Walker, on behalf of their client Mr. Clint Jacobs, will ensure that in future full compensation is recovered for British holiday makers injured in Europe by an uninsured driver.
Three years ago Clint suffered appalling injuries in southern Spain leaving him in a wheel chair and facing the prospect of amputation of his leg. He was on a holiday, won in a raffle, with his family. Mown down in a shopping centre car park, with just time to push his wife to safety, he suffered serious leg injuries and a fractured pelvis. His claim for full compensation was rejected by the Motor Insurer’s Bureau (MIB), a body set up to compensate victims in such cases. They argued he was only entitled to Spanish levels of compensation. These are approximately one quarter of UK levels and would have left him and his family in severe financial hardship.
Initially a high court judge supported the MIB’s position that damages should be based on where the accident occurred. However the Court of Appeal has agreed that EU rules intended that in this situation it is where the victim is resident that matters.
Mr. Jacobs was wheelchair bound for 12 months, he and his wife were determined to go ahead with their planned wedding in March 2008. They have struggled with enormous financial and emotional pressure since the accident, with Mr. Jacobs worrying how he would provide for his family in the future.
One of the hardest things to cope with has been that the MIB’s position prevented Mr. Jacobs receiving the care and rehabilitation he needed
Mr. Jacobs was represented in court by Kimberley Owen, Partner at Russell Jones and Walker. Acting under a no-win no-fee agreement meant that Mr. Jacobs would not have to pay anything if he lost the case. But when the original judge decided that Spanish law did apply, he faced a major financial pressure: it was not possible to obtain full insurance to cover any appeal. Mr. Jacobs had to decide whether to risk losing the appeal, which could have wiped out any damages.
Mr. Jacob’s first reaction has been one of overwhelming relief: “It’s the right decision and it’s taken an awful lot of pressure off. I can now look forward to getting the help I need.” But he also worries what steps the MIB may take to try to overturn the judgment. It applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal further, but that has been refused. There are further steps which they may take to try to bring the matter before the Supreme Court or even the European Court of Justice; and he fears that they will try to reverse the decision.
Mr. Jacob’s wife added: “It’s an incredible relief – we can actually start living again now. Clint can get the equipment he needs, and when he goes through further surgery we know that he will get all the after care that he should have but the NHS hasn’t got the resources to provide. And, if he does have to have his leg amputated, at least he will have some compensation to help us with the loss of income. Nothing can bring back the life he would have had, playing with our sons, enjoying life as a family and leading a successful business; but at least we do now have a future.”
Paul Kitson , head of Personal Injury at RJW added; “Mr Jacobs’ claim was run under a Conditional Fee Agreement – the so called 'no win no fee' arrangement, and was backed by insurance at first instance. But it proved very hard to obtain any cover for the appeal." Eventually only £20,000 cover could be secured, leaving him exposed to the risk of meeting the whole of the shortfall in relation to the MIB’s costs. The current government plans to make insurance premium and success fees irrecoverable would make it highly unlikely that this claim could have been brought at all, leaving Mr. Jacobs with a tiny proportion of the damages he would otherwise recover. And – as always – the inequality of the parties’ funding positions is underlined by the MIB’s apparent intention to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Comments (0)