header-logo header-logo

Third time lucky?

13 January 2017 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7729 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
nlj_7729_bevan

Nicholas Bevan calls into question a recent Court of Appeal ruling on the liability of a motor insurer to compensate a third party victim of an unauthorised driver

  • Unanimous but erroneous Court of Appeal ruling that a motor insurer not liable to compensate a third party victim of an unauthorised driver.
  • Court of Appeal fails to apply an EU law consistent construction of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the third time in five years.
  • Guidance from the Supreme Court needed.

In Sahin v Havard v Riverstone Insurance (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1202, [2016] All ER (D) 21 (Dec) it fell to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the motor insurers on risk for a hire vehicle were liable to satisfy an outstanding judgment against a customer. The Court of Appeal decided, unanimously but in the author’s view erroneously, that the insurer was not liable.

On 24 January 2008 Mr Sahin’s Chrysler minicab was damaged in a road accident. He incurred extensive hire charges and repair costs. The vehicle responsible

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll