header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 October 2014 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7624 / Categories: Opinion , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Bad law

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
commentbevan

Nicholas Bevan suspects an unconstitutional influence from insurers in the motor insurance sector

In June this year the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999 was subjected to judicial scrutiny and found wanting ((see Second Sight article on Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] EWHC 1785 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 31 (Jun)). The Department for Transport (DfT) was exposed for introducing an exclusion of liability clause that flouted the minimum standards of compensatory protection required under the European motor insurance directives and it was ordered to recompense a seriously injured passenger whom the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) had refused to compensate.

One of the most notable features of this case was the DfT’s apparently insouciant disregard of Community law. Its officials were unable, or unwilling, to explain why it had authorised a clause that even in 1999 amounted to a clear and obvious breach of the minimum standards of compensatory protection imposed under the Motor Insurance Directives.

The motor insurance sector is a highly profitable multibillion pound industry. It operates in an artificial market

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll