header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 May 2019 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7841 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Phoenix in flames: lessons from Pilling (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
In the second part of this special series on R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance Ltd, Nicholas Bevan analyses the Supreme Court’s approach to motor policy construction

In the second part of this special series, Nicholas Bevan analyses the Supreme Court’s approach to motor policy construction

The first instalment of this two-part feature on R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] UKSC 16, considered the restrictive way in which the Supreme Court discharged its duty to give effect to the wider scope of Article 3 of EC Directive 2009/103/EC on motor insurance (the Directive) when construing s 145 of Pt VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) (see Pt 1 in NLJ, 17 May 2019 p9). The court ruled that it was not possible to ‘read down’ s 145 RTA 1988 to extend its geographic scope to require compulsory third-party cover to extend to the use of vehicles on private premises.

The appeal was made in a contribution

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
Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll