header-logo header-logo

Landmark decision on ‘hit and run’

25 May 2017
Issue: 7748 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Court of Appeal has delivered some good news for victims of ‘hit and run’ drivers, in a significant decision that will allow claimants to pursue unnamed drivers in a civil action.

Ruling in Cameron v Hussain and another [2017] EWCA Civ 366 this week, Lady Justice Gloster and Lord Justice Lloyd Jones (Sir Ross Cranston dissenting) allowed a claimant injured by an unidentified hit and run driver of a vehicle that was traced and covered by insurance to recover from the vehicle's insurers. They did this by citing the untraced driver as a party described by reference to the car he was driving and the accident details.

Solicitor Dr Nicholas Bevan, a specialist in uninsured driver claims, said: ‘This landmark Court of Appeal ruling clears the way for numerous victims of anonymous “hit and run drivers” to avoid the disadvantageous and unfair compensatory schemes managed by the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) under Untraced Drivers Agreements 2003 and 2017, but only where the vehicle responsible is identified and has some insurance in place.  

‘Claimants can now pursue unnamed drivers in these circumstances by citing them as a party in a normal civil action. The defendant driver is to be described by reference to the accident circumstances in which they are alleged to have been involved.’ 

Dr Bevan said: ‘It was common ground that a judgment against such a party triggers the insurer’s statutory liability to compensate under s 151, Road Traffic Act 1988. Unauthorised use does not exculpate the insurer duty to compensate the third-party victim. This decision neatly circumvents the harsh impact of the statutory anomaly within s 151(2)(b) that restricts the insurer’s statutory duty to satisfy judgment against any party other than their assured, see Sahin v Havard & Riverstone Insurance [2016] EWCA Civ 1202.  The Untraced Drivers scheme will continue to apply to claims where the vehicle is untraced or uninsured.

‘This outcome is a remarkable achievement. Benjamin Williams QC’s skilful and masterly arguments on behalf of the claimant did not need to rely on any European Court of Justice authorities. The defendant insurers had sought to rely on Sahin, considered in the article, Third Time Lucky?, in this journal.

‘According to the MIB, in 2014 60% of all new MIB claims were hit and run accidents. How many of these feature identified vehicles that were covered by insurance is unknown.’

Issue: 7748 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
back-to-top-scroll