header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 July 2019 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7850 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

The MIB’s surrogate state liability (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Dr Nicholas Bevan explains how the Court of Appeal’s ruling in MIB v Lewis casts open the floodgates to compensation
  • The MIB is liable for wide-ranging infringements of EU law within the UK’s compulsory motor insurance regime.
  • The numerous practical implications could prove to be highly disruptive.

In the first part of this series, I considered how the unanimous ruling in MIB v Lewis  [2019] EWCA Civ 909 resolved, in decisive terms, the long-standing controversy over the Motor Insurance Bureau’s (MIB’s) legal status under European law (see Pt 1, NLJ 12 July 2019, p15). The court ruled that the MIB is an emanation of the state that is bound by the direct effect of Articles 3 and 10 of the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103 (the Directive). The Directive’s provisions set the standard of the compensatory guarantee mandated under European law for motor accident victims, which the government has failed to fully implement within Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) and the EC Rights Against

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

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll