header-logo header-logo

05 April 2012
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Driven to distraction over PI laws

Motor accident compensation laws "fall short of EC standards"

National laws on compensation for motor accident victims in the UK fall short of European Community law standards, a personal injury expert has warned.

Consequently, lawyers working in this field could find themselves exposed to professional negligence claims, according to Nicholas Bevan, director of enablelaw.

The failure to implement EC law has been thrown into “sharp focus” by two recent—and conflicting—Court of Appeal decisions, he says.

In Churchill Insurance v Wilkinson [2010] EWCA Civ 556, the passengers, who were insured, allowed an uninsured driver behind the wheel. Delaney v Pickett [2011] EWCA Civ 1532 involved a reckless driver who was found to be in possession of a large amount of cannabis. In both cases, the insurers argued the accident victims had breached their policy terms and were therefore not entitled to a payout.

According to Bevan, the national courts do not take sufficient account of the European Motor Insurance Directives and accompanying European jurisprudence.

“What the Delaney and Wilkinson appeals demonstrate is that the compensatory safeguards provided to victims of road accidents under our national law are inadequate,” he says.

“They are arcane and difficult to decipher, contrary to European law and thus in need of urgent revision. In the meantime, for those practising in this field without a firm grasp of these issues, it remains an area of potential exposure to professional negligence claims.”

A series of articles by Bevan for NLJ on motor accident compensation will begin later this month.

Issue: 7509 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll