header-logo header-logo

01 December 2017 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Opinion , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Defending the indefensible

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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