London Borough of Islington v Bourous: Strict Enforcement of RTA Protocol Procedures

Introduction

London Borough of Islington v Bourous ([2022] EWCA Civ 1242) is a pivotal case heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on September 16, 2022. This case involves two joined appeals concerning taxi drivers who sustained personal injuries in road traffic accidents. Both claimants pursued their cases under the Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents ('the RTA Protocol') and succeeded in the county court. The central issue revolves around the claimant's ability to recover damages for vehicle-related losses under the RTA Protocol, particularly when the vehicle is damaged or written off, rendering it unusable until repaired or replaced. The appellants in both cases are effectively the insurers of the defendants in the original county court proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal meticulously examined whether claimants, who filed under the RTA Protocol for personal injuries, could also recover for losses related to vehicle damage. The court reaffirmed the strict procedural framework of the RTA Protocol, emphasizing that all pertinent issues must be raised at the appropriate stages within the protocol. Attempts to introduce new arguments or evidence during Stage 3 hearings were dismissed, reinforcing the protocol's design to streamline and expedite low-value claims. Consequently, the appeals lodged by the insurers were dismissed, upholding the original decisions of the Deputy District Judges and the Circuit Judges.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases that have shaped the interpretation and application of the RTA Protocol:

Hussain v EUI Limited [2019] EWHC 2647 (QB); [2020] RTR 7: This case dealt with the burden of proving impecuniosity (a claimant's inability to afford hire charges) and established that claimants must substantiate their claims with evidence.
Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 65; [2004] 1 AC 1067: Focused on the recovery of credit hire costs by an impecunious claimant, emphasizing that defendants are liable for reasonable hire rates if it was foreseeable that the claimant would incur such costs.
Phillips v Willis [2016] EWCA Civ 401; [2017] RTR 4: A significant authority on the RTA Protocol, outlining its purpose to ensure swift and cost-effective resolution of low-value claims by limiting the scope of issues at each stage.
Mulholland v Hughes (Unreported, 18 September 2015): Addressed the procedural necessity for defendants to raise all objections at the earliest stage within the RTA Protocol.
Blair v Wickes Building Supplies Limited [2019] EWCA Civ: Reinforced the principles established in Phillips v Willis regarding the treatment of claims under the RTA Protocol.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the RTA Protocol's integrity by ensuring that procedural rules are strictly followed, thereby preventing procedural gaming and ensuring fair outcomes.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on a rigorous interpretation of the RTA Protocol's provisions. Key points include:

Strict Adherence to Protocol Stages: The RTA Protocol is designed with distinct stages, each intended to limit and define the scope of issues. The court emphasized that parties must fully engage with each stage, presenting all relevant arguments and evidence when required.
Preclusion of New Arguments at Later Stages: The judgment reinforced that parties cannot introduce new arguments or evidence during Stage 3 if they were not previously raised and substantiated. This prevents unfair advantages and ensures both parties have a clear understanding of the issues at hand from an early stage.
Procedural Efficiency: By limiting the issues to those raised within the RTA Protocol, the court aims to expedite the resolution of low-value claims, aligning with the protocol's overarching objective of reducing court burdens and minimizing costs.
Burden of Proof on Claimants: Especially in cases involving claims for hire charges based on impecuniosity, claimants bear the burden of proving their financial inability to afford standard hire rates. This places responsibility on claimants to provide adequate evidence within the protocol's framework.

The court dismissed attempts by the appellants to challenge the procedural adherence to the RTA Protocol, upholding the original decisions and illustrating the judiciary's dedication to procedural fidelity within these claims.

Impact

The judgment has several significant implications for future personal injury claims under the RTA Protocol:

Enhanced Procedural Strictness: Claimants and insurers are now more clearly obligated to present all relevant arguments and evidence within the designated stages of the RTA Protocol. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of claims or the inability to introduce new issues later.
Guidance on Impecuniosity Claims: The case underscores the necessity for claimants to provide substantial evidence when alleging impecuniosity to justify higher credit hire rates. Superficial or unsupported claims are unlikely to succeed, promoting more diligent substantiation of claims.
Affirmation of the RTA Protocol’s Purpose: By dismissing appeals that seek to disrupt the protocol’s streamlined process, the court reinforces the protocol’s role in ensuring quick and cost-effective resolutions of low-value claims, thereby reducing the judiciary's caseload.
Precedent for Future Disputes: The decision serves as a binding precedent for lower courts in handling similar disputes, particularly in strictly adhering to protocol procedures and timelines, ensuring consistency across cases.

Overall, the judgment fortifies the RTA Protocol’s framework, ensuring it functions as intended to provide efficient justice for low-value personal injury claims without overburdening the courts or disproportionately affecting insurers.

Complex Concepts Simplified

RTA Protocol Stages

The RTA Protocol is a structured process with multiple stages designed to streamline low-value personal injury claims:

Stage 1: Initiation of the claim through a Claim Notification Form (CNF). All mandatory information must be provided to proceed.
Stage 2: Exchange of settlement offers and negotiations based on the initial claims. Vehicle-related damages are typically handled outside this protocol unless specifically included.
Stage 3: Final determination of damages where remaining disputes are resolved, strictly based on issues raised in previous stages.

Impecuniosity in Claims

Impecuniosity refers to a claimant's inability to afford certain costs, such as higher credit hire rates, necessitated by the loss of a vehicle used for income (e.g., taxi drivers). Under the RTA Protocol:

Claimants must provide evidence to substantiate their claim of impecuniosity.
Without adequate proof, higher hire charges cannot be recovered.

Transfer to Part 7

Part 7 refers to a more detailed and formal procedure for claims that may involve complex issues or higher damages. Transferring a claim from the RTA Protocol to Part 7 typically requires:

A request by one of the parties.
Justifiable reasons, often involving complex legal or factual issues that cannot be adequately addressed within the RTA Protocol’s streamlined framework.

Conclusion

The London Borough of Islington v Bourous judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the RTA Protocol’s stringent procedural requirements for low-value personal injury claims. By dismissing appeals that failed to adhere to the protocol’s stages, the court underscored the necessity for claimants and insurers to engage fully with each procedural step, ensuring that all pertinent issues are addressed timely and appropriately. This decision not only reinforces the integrity and efficiency of the RTA Protocol but also sets a clear precedent for future cases, emphasizing that deviations from established protocols without legitimate cause will not be tolerated. Claimants must now be more diligent in their submissions, providing comprehensive evidence within the designated stages, while insurers can be more confident in the protocol’s ability to manage large volumes of routine claims effectively.