header-logo header-logo

State liability: betwixt & between Brexit (Pt 2)

03 November 2017 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7768 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
nlj_7768_bevan

In his second article, Nicholas Bevan explains why the MIB is liable for gaps in the Road Traffic Act 1988

  • MIB liable for gaps in compulsory motor insurance.
  • The Motor Insurance Directives are directly effective.
  • New categories of claim unlocked.

In Pt 1 of this double feature the wider ramifications of the European Court of Justice (ECJ)’s judgment in Farrell v Whitty, Minister for the Environment and others [2017] EUECJ C-413/15 (Farrell 2) were considered. These derive from the broad and purposive approach to be applied when deciding whether it is appropriate extend the rule in Ursula Becker v Finanzamt Münster- Innenstadt [1982] CJEU (Case 8/81) that allows individuals to invoke the wording of a directive in a civil action against a member state that has failed to implement its legislative objectives, where it confers rights on individuals in terms that are sufficiently clear and unconditional.

Farrell 2 provides its own gloss on the factors consistent with direct effect by clarifying the circumstances in which it

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

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

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