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
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll