Coward v MIB [1963] 1 QB 259
Workman carried to work on colleague’s motorcycle; whether intention to create legal relations
Facts
Mr Coward was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle owned and driven by his work colleague Mr Cole. There was an accident resulting from Mr Cole’s negligence, and both were killed. Mrs Coward obtained judgement for damages which was not paid out because Mr Cole’s insurance policy did not provide cover for him to carry pillion passengers. She sought to recover damages from the MIB claiming a policy should have been in place under Road Traffic Act 1930 Part II.
Issues
Under the Road Traffic Act 1930 Part II a passenger who is carried for hire or reward in the insured’s vehicle must be covered on the driver’s insurance policy. Mrs Coward contended that her husband and Mr Cole had reached an agreement whereby he would regularly provide lifts to work on his motor cycle in return for certain cash payments. She argued this amounted to a contractual obligation and, therefore, the risk to her husband should have been covered by Mr Cole’s policy or, failing that, by the MIB under their agreement with the Ministry of Transport. The MIB argued there was no legally enforceable contract between Mr Cole and Mr Coward as there had been no intention to create legal relations. They also argued that a motor cycle was not a ‘vehicle’ for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1930.
Decision/Outcome
Mrs Coward’s claim was unsuccessful. Neither party intended there was a legal obligation to carry and be carried to and from work, under a binding contractual agreement. Mr Coward was not a passenger who Mr Cole was under a duty to ensure and the MIB, therefore, were not under an obligation to satisfy the judgement.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the legal principles established in Coward v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1963] 1 QB 259. The Court of Appeal’s holding — that a regular informal arrangement between friends or colleagues to share lifts does not, without more, give rise to an intention to create legal relations and therefore does not constitute a binding contract — continues to be good law and is still cited in contract law teaching on this point.
Readers should note, however, that the statutory framework discussed in the article is now entirely superseded. The Road Traffic Act 1930 was replaced by the Road Traffic Act 1960 and subsequently by the Road Traffic Act 1988, which currently governs compulsory motor vehicle insurance in Great Britain. The requirement to insure passengers carried for hire or reward is now addressed within that 1988 Act framework. The article’s references to the 1930 Act are therefore of historical relevance only, reflecting the law as it stood at the time of the litigation, and should not be taken as a statement of current statutory law.
The Motor Insurers’ Bureau continues to operate under updated agreements with the Secretary of State rather than the Ministry of Transport; the current agreements governing uninsured and untraced drivers date from 2017 and 1996 respectively, as updated. None of these subsequent developments affect the core contractual law principle for which this case is cited.
