Implied Repeal Of Cayman Law To Benefit Victims Of Motor Vehicle Accidents

• Published date: 05 June 2020
• Author: Mr Kerrie Cox
• Subject Matter: Insurance, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Rail, Road & Cycling, Insurance Laws and Products, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: HSM Chambers

The Cayman Islands' Grand Court has settled a long-standing controversy which has plagued those injured in road traffic accidents over many years.

In short, by the enactment of Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Law (1964) (Motor Insurance Law), the legislation established a stand-alone prescribed limitation period of 3 years for an injured party to bring a claim arising from a vehicle accident. This provision endured the 1991 Revision though to its present form in 2012, under s.17 (s.17).

Although this limitation period ultimately corresponded with s.13(4)(a) of the Limitation Law (originally enacted in 1991) for personal injuries (i.e. 3 years from the date of the accident), because claims resulting from a road traffic accident were deemed to be governed exclusively by the Motor Insurance Law, this had historically prohibited injured parties from seeking the court's discretion to extend the period of limitation under s.39 of the Limitation Law.

In a detailed and far-reaching judgment consisting of 45 pages, Mr. Justice McMillan in Bennett v. Diaz (2020) (unreported) (Bennett) determined that the introduction of the Limitation Law impliedly repealed s.17. Consequently, going forward, the Limitation Law now governs personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents.

Case Background

The background to the case is only relevant to the extent that the plaintiff failed to issue proceedings within 3 years from the date of a motor vehicle accident. Consequently, she sought the court's discretion to extend the primary period of limitation under s.39 of the Limitation Law.

In response, the defendant admitted liability but pleaded the expiry of the limitation period set out in s.17, and predictably denied the applicability of ss. 13 and 39 of the Limitation law.

The central question before the court was whether the Limitation Law, when originally enacted in 1991, impliedly repealed s.17. If so, this would enable the Court to consider its jurisdiction to exercise a power under section 39 of the Limitation Law for those injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The Legal Framework and Historical Perspective

It is important to understand that before the introduction of the Motor Insurance Law in 1964, there was no limitation period for torts or other wrongful acts relevant to personal injury in the Cayman Islands. Therefore the 1964 legislation was a means to introduce some form of limitation of actions concerning those injured by the negligence of other road users.

The Motor Insurance Law was revised in 1991 (8th March) and although the first Limitation Law was enacted 4 months later in July 1991, the formal text of s.17 (unchanged from the 1964 legislation) remained in situ.

S.17 states as follows:

[17] "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any rule of law or equity, no action shall be brought in any court by or on behalf of...