header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
01 December 2017 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Opinion , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Defending the indefensible

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7772_bevan

Nicholas Bevan regrets that an opportunity has been missed & justice has not been done

Mr Justice Ouseley delivered his judgment in RoadPeace v Secretary of State for Transport [2017] EWHC 2725 (Admin) on 7 November 2017. This judicial review was brought when the minister ignored RoadPeace’s repeated requests to remove two unlawful exclusions of liability from the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 2015 and to bring the UK’s regulation of motor insurance policies and the compensatory schemes operated by the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) into line with the minimum standard set by the Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103/EC (the Directive). The minister had been fully briefed by several well-informed sources about the systemic defects in the UK’s implementation of the Directive, within his own February 2013 consultation on the MIB agreements.

By the time the case was heard, in February 2017, the defendant had been compelled to concede that the statutory regulation of motor insurers and the private law arrangements with the MIB for compensating victims of uninsured or untraced drivers do not conform with the

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
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll