In that case, the judge found that, although the Road Traffic Act 1988 only requires a policy to cover liability which may be incurred in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, "the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place", the Motor Insurers' Bureau ("MIB") was nevertheless liable (at least to the extent of the minimum requisite cover of EUR 1 million per victim), because of the 2009 EU Motor Directive, which had a direct effect on the MIB (because it was held to be an "emanation of the state"). The Directive imposes an obligation on all member states to take appropriate measures to ensure compulsory insurance "in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in its territory" and, since the ECJ decision in Vnuk (which implicitly held that the obligation of compulsory insurance extends to the use of vehicles on private land – and later cases have held that explicitly), the UK has not completely implemented the obligation imposed by the Directive. Because the MIB was held to be liable, the claimant's further claim that he was entitled to Francovich damages against the Secretary of State for Transport for failing to implement the Directive was stayed. (It has been held in Roadpeace v Secretary of State for Transport that UK law is no longer compatible with the Directive following Vnuk).

Similar issues arose in this case, in which the claimant was injured in an accident on private land caused by the alleged negligent use of a vehicle by her mother. The claimant sought Francovich damages but the defendant argued that that claim should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in Lewis v Tindale. That was rejected by the judge. Currently in the QBD, cases of 4-5 days duration are being listed 12 months from now: "If that remains the position, it means that, if there is a stay, the earliest that the issue due to be tried in December will be heard (on the assumption that Lewis ends in the Court of Appeal) would be during the Summer (more likely, the Autumn) Term 2020 and thus some two years hence".

Given that the claimant has suffered serious injuries, and the rate of interest at the moment would not adequately compensate her for this further delay, it should be up to her legal team to decide whether it is in her interest to proceed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.