header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 September 2017 / Roger Franklin
Issue: 6672 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Third parties rights against insurers: old versus new

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7762_franklin_0

When it comes to Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers), where the 1930 Act applies, the 2010 Act does not. Roger Franklin explains

  • The provisions of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 shall not have retrospective effect so as to circumvent the less attractive former regime under the 1930 Act.

It is now more than a year since the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) came into force and a number of cases are starting to bring the statutory reform to the forefront of judicial scrutiny. In the recent judgment of Redman v (1) Zurich Insurance Plc and (2) ESJS1 Ltd [2017] EWHC 1919 (QB), All ER (D) 07 (Aug), Turner J made it clear that the provisions of the 2010 Act shall not have retrospective effect so as to circumvent the less attractive former regime.

Recap

The aim of the statutory reform and the introduction of the 2010 Act was to replace the previous regime set out in the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers)

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
Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Company conspiracy clarified
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
NLJ this week: Home is where intent lies
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
NLJ this week: Farewell to Chancery
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
NLJ this week: Silence carries a price
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
NLJ this week: Costs sting after a courtroom gamble
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll