The true nature and status of MIBI 13 agreements. Although both parties to the appeal considered the 2009 agreement to be a contractual agreement, this view is debatable. The 2009 agreement is of course expressed in the treaty, but it is nevertheless a treaty with very particular characteristics. Since the beginning of MIBI in 1955, the various agreements between the Minister and the MIBI have either been officially published by the Government Stationery Office or disseminated in public opinion. Of course, the heart of a treaty is that it defines the rights of the contracting parties, but it is precisely through the official publication in this way that the parties also seemed to be concerned about the rights and rights of persons who, in reality, are not parties to the agreement. 31. The agreements have been updated from time to time and this version is the January 29, 2009 version. Under the title “Agreement”, the agreement of 29 January 2009 between the Minister of Transport and mibi The Argument of Commercial Reality 58. It is clear from the case law that the courts will object to the interpretation of a contract that will result in a result: contrary to business common sense: see Investor Compensation Scheme v.
West Bromwich Building Society  1 WLR 896, 912 per Lord Hoffman and Analog Devices BV v. Zurich Insurance Co.  IESC 12,  1 IR 274, 281 per Geoghe J.Jgangangan. This case law was invoked by Mr. Gallagher S.C to support his argument that this construction of the 2009 agreement is contrary to commercial realities and common sense. It would have been remarkable if insurers had accepted a cross-guarantee for the debts or potential liabilities of other insurers, without this being explicitly stated or confirmed in the MIBI agreement itself. 72. The Department essentially expresses a legal opinion on the meaning and effect of the agreement. The interpretation of a contractual document is a search for the intent of the parties, as expressed in the agreement, and that is where the parties have expressed their intention. 4.
As has already been said, the 2009 agreement is a very unusual one. Mibi agrees with the Minister that he will meet certain debts to third parties under the conditions set out in them. It is an agreement between two parties, under which one, the MIBI, has agreed with the other, the Minister, to grant certain benefits to third parties or to make debts to third parties, subject to third parties` compliance with conditions to which they have obviously not consented. It is also a means by which the state fulfills certain obligations under the auto insurance guidelines. 77. Second, the language of Article 4.1.1 of the 2009 agreement cannot in itself be understood as another way of including the insurer`s insolvency case. The most sensitive question is whether this interpretation is negatively influenced by a review of the rest of the 2009 agreement because of the application of the noscitur a sociis principle. As noted in the Office`s report, in the event of an insolvency of one of its members, the Board is required, by its agreement with the Minister of Transport, to pay claims to the extent that its insolvent members are unable to do so. This potential liability is not included in these financial statements. Barr J.A. stated that mibi was not a pie giver and that its role was to compensate if the negligent drivers did not have valid insurance. As a general rule, the negligent driver and/or the owner is named as a defendant and the MIBI is cited as a co-accused.
If liability is established against the uninsured driver, MIBI`s judgment can be recovered. The only circumstance in which MIBI can be sued as the sole defendant is that the owner/user of the injurious vehicle has not been identified under clause 6 of the 2009 MIBI contract.