header-logo header-logo

04 October 2018 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7811 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Lewis v Motor Insurers Bureau: a five-month wonder?

The High Court rules that the MIB is an emanation of the state. Nicholas Bevan reports.

  • Lewis v MIB : provides a valuable new direct route to redress against the MIB for motor accident victims wrongly excluded from the compensatory guarantee.
  • Accordingly, motor accident victims injured in private parking areas or in private cul de sacs can now recover their compensatory entitlement from the MIB direct.
  • However, after Brexit, these important principles, which enable ordinary citizens to challenge the longstanding abuses of power and institutional bias in this area, will be lost.

In Lewis v MIB [2018] EWHC 2376 (QB), [2018] All ER (D) 53 (Sep) Mr Justice Soole ruled that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) was liable under European law to compensate a man who was struck down and seriously injured by an uninsured motorist in a field. In doing so, he broke with a time honoured but misconceived belief that the MIB’s compensatory role is restricted to the contractual obligations with the Secretary of State for Transport.

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll