header-logo header-logo

20 February 2019
Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Motor insurers win hit & run case

The victim of an unidentified hit and run driver has lost her claim at the Supreme Court, in a case welcomed by insurance lawyers.

The case, Cameron v Hussain [2019] UKSC 6 concerned a collision in 2013 between Miss Cameron’s car and a Nissan Micra. The Micra did not stop but a passing driver took down its number plate. It was registered in the name of Naveed Hussain.

Hussain’s insurer challenged Cameron’s claim on the grounds it could not be proved that Hussain was the driver. Cameron sought to amend her claim to the ‘the person unknown driving vehicle….’.

The case centred on the issue of whether a claimant can bring a claim against an unnamed defendant if the claimant has been the victim of an unidentified hit and run driver, and the car the unidentified driver was driving is covered by an insurance policy, albeit one in the name of someone untraceable. Overturning the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously held that such a claim cannot be brought.

Damian Ward, partner at Keoghs, which acted for the insurer in the case, said: ‘It is long-established that the victim of an untraced driver in the UK has protection in the various forms of the Untraced Drivers Agreement.

‘What would have presented as an open goal to fraudsters has been instead determined as a rejection of the challenge to the existing compensation framework for victims of untraced drivers in RTA cases, and of the UK’s failure to lawfully implement the Sixth EC Motor Insurance Directive.’

Welcoming the decision, Ian Davies, partner at Kennedys, said: ‘We have returned to the established approach and insurers’ systems and processes should not need to be amended.’

Kennedys partner Mark Walsh said: ‘The judgment is unequivocal.

‘It is now abundantly clear that the issuing and service of proceedings by the claimant is simply not permitted in circumstances where the existence of the proceedings could never be brought to the attention of the defendant, and that substituted service on the defendant insurer is not an effective solution.’ 

Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll