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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll