header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 June 2016 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7701 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Putting wrongs to rights (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7701_bevan

In the second of two articles, Nicholas Bevan explains why he believes the MIB is liable for defects in the Road Traffic Act

In “Putting wrongs to rights (Pt 1)” the author argued the case for the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) being held directly liable for compensating motor accident victims who fall through the statutory protection conferred under Pt VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). The article hypothecated that if the Becker exception applies to Art 10 of the European directive (2009/103/EC) on motor insurance (the Directive) then the MIB will be liable to compensate any victim of a motor vehicle whose use ought under European law to be covered by third party insurance, even if there is none in place because the RTA 1988 does not require it. In short the case was made for Art 10 of the Directive having direct effect against the MIB.

Article 10 of the Directive defines the role of the authorised compensating body. The Uninsured Drivers Agreements 1999

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
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
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 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
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
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
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’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
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’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll