Cameron v Liverpool Victoria: principle v process

14 March 2019 / Nicholas Bevan

Issue: 7832 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance

Restoration of the status quo ante: Nicholas Bevan reviews the Supreme Court ruling in Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd

The Supreme Court has ruled that victims of ‘hit and run’ drivers have only one route to compensatory redress—a compensation scheme managed by the MIB.

In Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6 the Supreme Court ruled that the correct route to redress for all victims of ‘hit and run’ drivers under the UK’s motor insurance guarantee scheme lies to the compensation scheme managed by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB).

The MIB is a consortium that is wholly owned and managed by the motor insurance industry. At the date of the accident in 2013, a revised version of the Untraced Drivers Agreement (UtDA) 2003 applied. This scheme operates under terms the MIB has negotiated in private with the Secretary of State for Transport acting under the powers conferred on him by s 2 European Community Act 1972 (ECA 1972), that enable him to implement the Motor Insurance Directives.

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

Cameron v Liverpool Victoria: principle v process

Restoration of the status quo ante: Nicholas Bevan reviews the Supreme Court ruling in Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd

The Supreme Court has ruled that victims of ‘hit and run’ drivers have only one route to compensatory redress—a compensation scheme managed by the MIB.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML

The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week

NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity

Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted

NLJ this week: A prince no more?

Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke

NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk

Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'

NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law

In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains

Error message

Cameron v Liverpool Victoria: principle v process

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith