header-logo header-logo

On the right road? (Pt II)

08 February 2013 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7547 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Nicholas Bevan continues his series on compensating RTA victims & finds our national law provision wanting

The terms, scope and workings of the UK government’s compensation guarantee has preoccupied legislators, the judiciary and legal practitioners alike since the first Road Traffic Act introduced in 1930 (RTA 1930). In the UK this provision has evolved over the years to produce four distinct compensatory safety nets. The first two consist of statutory rights. Between them, they confer on a victim a direct right to recover compensation from the defendant’s insurer and they are to be found within Pt VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). The third and fourth are delivered by a completely different route: through two extra-statutory compensation schemes devised specifically for victims of uninsured and unidentified drivers. The distinction between the two different types of scheme (statutory and extra-statutory) is relevant to the way one interprets them because different rules of construction are said to apply. This article concentrates on the first two statutory schemes.

The contractual

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll