header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 March 2019 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7832 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Cameron v Liverpool Victoria: principle v process

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll