header-logo header-logo

20 April 2012 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7510 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Trial & error

Successive governments have failed to protect RTA victims. It’s time to act, says Nicholas Bevan

Two recent conflicting Court of Appeal decisions throw our government’s failure to implement Community law into sharp focus. In the first case, the Court of Appeal applied the correct approach to interpreting our national law in the light of European Community law and revealed a longstanding inconsistency between the compensatory safeguards provided by our state and that prescribed under Community law. That issue was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for guidance. In the second appeal, which was heard 11 months later, a differently constituted Court of Appeal failed to adhere to the principles applied in the first. In doing so it took a wrong path that ultimately lead to its erroneous decision.

The appeals feature three separate road accidents but each had the following in common: 
  • seriously injured passengers claiming against their drivers; 
  • third party motor insurance cover in place for the vehicles in which the passengers were riding;
  • the driver responsible was not covered to drive
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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll