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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll