In his latest NLJ mini-series, Nicholas Bevan explains why the ECJ ruling in Farrell 2 opens up hundreds of new claims for accident victims wrongly excluded from cover by defective UK law
- The direct effect of Directives is widened.
- Directives can be invoked as though set out in statutory form.
- MIB directly liable for gaps in the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ)’s ruling in Farrell v Whitty, Minister for the Environment and others [2017] EUECJ C-413/15 (Farrell 2 ) is the most important ruling on state liability for over a quarter century. Its impact extends beyond the Motor Insurance Directives it addresses. Its effect is to extend the range of organisations that are capable of being pinned with a direct liability to compensate individuals adversely affected by a state’s failure to implement a Directive.
Farrell 2 explains how national courts should apply the bundle of criteria (set out in paras [18] to [20] of
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
