Sahin’s fate marks a turning point in the tide of European law in this jurisdiction, says Nicholas Bevan
- The basic proposition is that every motor policy must cover any use made of that vehicle consistent with its normal function.
- The way is still open to cite European law to challenge institutionalised injustice and unconstitutional irregularity but it is increasingly a case of ‘now or never’.
On 10 April the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal in Sahin v Havard & Riverstone Insurance [2016] EWCA Civ 1202. In ‘Third Time Lucky?’, NLJ , 13 January 2017, p 13 I explained why I believed that the Court of Appeal’s decision flouted European law and it is a view I still hold.
The Sahin appeal
The Sahin appeal considered the extent to which motor insurers can avoid their liability under s 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) to compensate third-party victims where an assured is in breach of a policy term. This is an important question because this practice is routinely
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=6e6975ed_1)
