header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
01 December 2017 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Opinion , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Defending the indefensible

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7772_bevan

Nicholas Bevan regrets that an opportunity has been missed & justice has not been done

Mr Justice Ouseley delivered his judgment in RoadPeace v Secretary of State for Transport [2017] EWHC 2725 (Admin) on 7 November 2017. This judicial review was brought when the minister ignored RoadPeace’s repeated requests to remove two unlawful exclusions of liability from the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 2015 and to bring the UK’s regulation of motor insurance policies and the compensatory schemes operated by the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) into line with the minimum standard set by the Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103/EC (the Directive). The minister had been fully briefed by several well-informed sources about the systemic defects in the UK’s implementation of the Directive, within his own February 2013 consultation on the MIB agreements.

By the time the case was heard, in February 2017, the defendant had been compelled to concede that the statutory regulation of motor insurers and the private law arrangements with the MIB for compensating victims of uninsured or untraced drivers do not conform with the

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