header-logo header-logo

Motor insurers win hit & run case

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

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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Writing in NLJ this week, Thomas Rothwell and Kavish Shah of Falcon Chambers unpack the surprise inclusion of a ban on upwards-only rent reviews in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll