header-logo header-logo

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

State liability: betwixt & between Brexit (Pt 2)

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 is

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll