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
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

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
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’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll