header-logo header-logo

Putting wrongs to rights (Pt 2)

03 June 2016 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7701 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll