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
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll