header-logo header-logo

Against the odds

14 August 2013 / Andrew Ritchie KC
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Dealing with the MIB under the Untraced Drivers Agreement 2003 has become much clearer after a recent arbitration ruling. Andrew Ritchie QC reports

Untraced drivers cases are generally thought to be difficult and unprofitable for lawyers acting for the applicant because the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) gathers all of the evidence and then decides the award. The claimant’s lawyers are excluded from the evidence-gathering process (unless the claimant wants to pay them personally) and only receive the fixed fee. If the award is appealed, it goes to arbitration and, if requested, a full oral hearing. If the applicant is successful, normal legal costs are awarded.

 

A better way

Dealing with the MIB under the Untraced Drivers’ Agreement 2003 (UDA 2003) has become much clearer post- Andrews v MIB [2012] . Here, after a three-day arbitration hearing before Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC, the applicant, a paraplegic, won on liability and causation. Two months later, despite the MIB trying to restrict the applicant’s costs, he was awarded his normal legal costs and disbursements. Five months later,

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

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll