[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Campbell v BMW Insurance Company [2001] EWCA Civ 1660 (26 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1660.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1660

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SHOREDITCH COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE COTRAN)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 26 October 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE RIX: This is an application for permission to appeal from a judgment of His Honour Judge Cotran in the Shoreditch County Court given on 25 July 2001. It is a second tier appeal, therefore this court cannot give permission to appeal unless there is some important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reason why an appeal should be permitted.
2. Mr Campbell has brought a claim against a defendant called BMW Insurance. The claim is expressed in these words:

"I was overcharged premiums for 1999/2000. The defendants stated they were not able to recover costs for claims which took place in 1998. I have documentation which proves otherwise. The remedy I seek is repayment of money owed to me plus interest and compensation for damages. I expect to recover £5,000."

3. Mr Campbell has no papers of his own relating to his claim. However, he relies entirely upon a letter from the Insurance Ombudsman Bureau dated 12 July 2000 in which the adjudicator sets out for Mr Campbell the results of the inquiries which the Bureau initiated as a result of the complaint Mr Campbell made against his insurer, the Royal & Sun Alliance. I have enquired of Mr Campbell why there is a disparity between the company or firm which he has sued, BMW Insurance, and the name of the Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance which the Bureau says is his insurer. He tells me that, whereas the Royal & Sun Alliance are the insurers or underwriters of his car, BMW Insurance are his brokers.
4. The major difficulty in the advancement of this application is that, in the light of his claim, it is clear that Mr Campbell is not bringing a claim in negligence such as might possibly be brought against the brokers, he is bringing a claim against his insurers for the reinstatement of his no-claims bonus and the repayment to him of the difference between the premium charged to him without that bonus or discount and the lower premium which would have been charged if his bonus had survived or reinstated. However, Mr Campbell has not named his insurers as the defendant, but his brokers.
5. The second difficulty is that it seems from the Bureau's letter, but Mr Campbell has confirmed the situation and also confirmed the chronology of events, that he made two claims in the 1998/1999 policy year. This policy is renewed in May each year. He made a claim on 9 July 1998, in which ultimately (but not until December 1999) the Royal & Sun Alliance did recover all its outlay, as it seems it should have done since Mr Campbell's car was parked and unoccupied at the time of the collision in question. The second claim arose out of an accident on 10 November 1998 (wrongly referred to as 10 November 1999 in the Bureau's letter) which was in the same policy year as the first claim. That was a typical dispute between drivers as to who was at fault. As far as the Bureau's letter goes, that dispute has never been resolved and the insurers, the Royal & Sun Alliance, are, as far as material, still out of pocket. Therefore, Mr Campbell's claim that his insurers made a complete recovery in respect of both claims is not correct.
6. If the right party had been sued and the matter had simply rested on the first claim where the insurers ultimately did make a complete recovery, the matter might have been different. But that is water under the bridge in the light of the same second claim, in the policy year, where the insurers have not made a recovery in respect of the claim Mr Campbell has made; and in any event Mr Campbell has sued the wrong party.
7. For all those reasons, I see no important point of principle or practice or other compelling reason why permission should be given. I regret that I must refuse this application. What rights if any Mr Campbell might have against his true insurers, the Royal & Sun Alliance, or against his brokers where any claim would have to be in negligence, is a separate matter which is not before me. I can, however, tell Mr Campbell that it may be that he can obtain advice from the Citizens' Advice Bureau, which is in this building, if he cares to do so. Unfortunately, I cannot help him on his present application.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.