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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll