header-logo header-logo

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

Against the odds

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

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll