The first of two judgments has been handed down by Dexter Dias J in the case of DHV v MIB [2025] EWHC 2002 (KB), a serious cross-border personal injury claim. Patrick Vincent KC and James Pickering of 12KBW, instructed by Tim Beasley of Levenes Solicitors, represented the Claimant in a trial heard over 14 days.

On 21 July 2017, DHV was attending a wedding in Mallorca. He was at a personal and professional peak in his life, with a successful roofing business and a strong relationship with his long term girlfriend with whom he had been discussing marriage.

Everything changed when he was hit by an uninsured minivan on a road outside the wedding venue in the early hours of the morning. DHV was dragged under the minivan for nearly 200 feet, suffering severe brain injuries. While he recovered from the acute injuries, his business collapsed, and he accumulated enormous debts. His relationship with his girlfriend fell apart and they split up. Dexter Dias J described his life as “now unrecognisable from that before he entered the Mallorcan road”.

DHV brought a claim against the MIB under the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003. The pre-Brexit Regulations allowed him to sue the MIB in England in place of its Spanish equivalent (the Consorcio de Compensacion de Seguros).

The 103-page primary judgment deals with many issues which are essential reading for cross-border personal injury lawyers. These included:

  • Apportionment of liability under Spanish law: Primary liability was admitted. A significant issue was whether the lay witness evidence and accident reconstruction evidence showed that DHV was upright or lying on the road due to the effects of alcohol at the time of the accident. The judge found that the latter was probably true. He apportioned liability 65/35 against DHV on this basis.
  • Experts: The judge was critical of aspects of the evidence of DHV’s experts. This discussion of the expert evidence and the warnings it contains are useful for those litigating cross-border claims.
  • Recital 33 of the Rome II Regulation: DHV argued that a Spanish Court hearing this case would be entitled, by virtue of Recital 33 of Rome II coupled with the proper construction of the relevant Spanish legal provisions, to step outside the confines of the Baremo system for assessing damages and so award DHV his actual losses. The MIB’s response was that Rome II did not apply at all since the applicable law was determined by the 2003 Regulations and Recital 33 and the Spanish legal provisions did not have the effect argued for by DHV. The judge accepted that Rome II and Recital 33 applied but ultimately found that he remained bound to assess damages strictly in accordance with the Baremo system.
  • Application of the Baremo: There is detailed discussion about issues including the “consolidation” date of DHV’s injuries, the various heads of loss recoverable under the Baremo, and the limited admissibility of private actuarial evidence for the purpose of quantifying losses suffered by non-Spanish residents.
  • Spanish penalty interest: A separate judgment on the issue of penalty interest will be handed down on 1 August 2025.

These issues and many crucial matters that did not feature in the judgment but which had a real impact in the courtroom will be discussed at 12KBW’s upcoming Annual International & Travel Law Seminar, the date of which is to be announced shortly.