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
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

Nick Vernon of Walkers on swapping Birmingham for Bermuda and building an employment practice by the sea

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Global firm re-elects CEO for second term

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Business appoints managing director of operational excellence

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