header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 October 2016 / Sophie Horsfall
Issue: 7720 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Injured abroad?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7720_horsefall

Sophie Horsfall follows the Supreme Court ruling on the applicable law in motor insurance accident claims against the UK compensation body
  • Moreno v MIB clarified the proper interpretation of the regulations which implemented the Fourth European Motor Insurance Directive into UK law.

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court in Moreno v MIB [2016] UKSC 52, [2016] All ER (D) 17 (Aug), which clarified the proper interpretation of the regulations which implemented the Fourth European Motor Insurance Directive (2000/26/EEC) into UK law.

This decision will enable MIB, as the UK compensation body, to compensate UK citizens injured in accidents in other countries participating in the Green Card Scheme caused by a vehicle registered in another EEA member state, or in an EEA member state caused by an unidentified vehicle, in the same way as they would have been compensated had they brought their claims in the country where the accident took place.

Ms Moreno was the victim of an accident in Greece while on holiday in 2011. She was seriously

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
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
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?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
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
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
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
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll