header-logo header-logo

27 May 2016 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7700 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Putting wrongs to rights (Pt 1)

nlj_7700_bevan

In the first of two articles, Nicholas Bevan explains why he believes the MIB is liable for defects in the Road Traffic Act

Motor accident victims are entitled to claim compensation directly from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) for incidents that ought to be covered by the compulsory third party insurance provisions of Pt VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) but where, due to the secretary of state for transport’s inaction, they are not.

Longstanding non-conformity

Between them, ss 143 and 145 RTA 1988 prescribe the nature and extent of the compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance requirement. This confines its geographic scope to use in public places (see s 185) and it is further restricted to motor vehicles intended or adapted for road use (see s 192). However, these constraints are clearly incompatible with the broader scope of the European Directive (2009/103/EC) on motor insurance (the Directive).

Articles 3 and 10 of the Directive set out the scope of the third party motor insurance requirement as well as the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll