header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 April 2015 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7648 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

No through road

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_april_17_bevan

Nicholas Bevan explains why Delaney is a game changer

In Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWCA Civ 172, the Court of Appeal upheld Mr Justice Jay’s strident finding that the UK government was liable to compensate a seriously injured car passenger for his injuries. Its liability was due to the failure by successive governments to extend adequate compensatory protection to third party victims, as required under European law.

Empty victory

This Francovich action arose out of an earlier claim by Sean Delaney against his driver (Shane Pickett) and the vehicle’s motor insurers (Tradewise). It proved to be something of an empty victory. Although the driver admitted full responsibility for the accident, he was not the main target. Delaney’s only hope of recovering his extensive compensatory needs depended on his establishing that Tradewise was also liable to compensate him: either directly under s 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), or indirectly as agents of the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) under the terms of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999.

Delaney’s first

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