header-logo header-logo

On the right road (Pt IV)

22 February 2013 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7549 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

In his final article on compensation for motor victims, Nicholas Bevan compares & contrasts UK & EU provisions

There is a strong case to argue that the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999 (the 1999 agreement) is part and parcel of our national law and thus subject to the Marleasing interpretive principle (see Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA [1990] ECR I-4135) and that the normal rules of construction that apply to private agreements produce the same purposive outcome anyway. Furthermore, as the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) is probably an emanation of state, any material departure from the minimum levels of compensatory protection prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives (MVIDs) is directly enforceable by the courts.  Even if direct effect does not apply, the UK government is liable for losses sustained by claimants through its failure to properly implement the MVIDs under Francovich and others [1991] ECR 1-5357.

It is arguable, following the ECJ ruling in Churchill, that the 1999 agreement is now confined to the dwindling

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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll