header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 May 2016 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7700 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Putting wrongs to rights (Pt 1)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll