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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll