header-logo header-logo

24 May 2019 / Glyn Thompson
Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , EU
printer mail-detail

Post-Pilling: what’s the use?

Glyn Thompson reflects on the Supreme Court’s assessment of what constitutes use & the possible impact of EU principles post Brexit
  • The Supreme Court had the first chance in generation to review the question of use and provide clarity on what constituted use.

Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes a person liable for an accident which was ‘caused by or arose from the use of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place’. For years, UK courts have wrestled with what constitutes ‘use’ within that definition. The judgment which has most concerned insurers over the last two decades came in the Court of Appeal case of Dunthorne v Bentley [1999] Lloyd’s Rep 560, [1994] Lexis Citation 1708 when it was held that parking a car at the side of the road after having run out of petrol and crossing the road to seek help from a colleague was ‘use’ when an accident arose as a result. With that as a benchmark, what else is ‘use’?

The definition debate

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll