header-logo header-logo

26 October 2017
Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Insurance surgery , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Ruling equips claimants with new right of action

nlj_7767_cover

The European Court of Justice ruling in Farrell v Whitty (C-413/15), this month, fixes the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) with a completely new liability to compensate motor accident victims aff ected by the government’s longstanding failure to implement the European Motor Insurance Directives (the Directives) properly, according to insurance expert Dr Nicholas Bevan.

Bevan, a solicitor, said: ‘In Farrell the court ruled that the Irish compensating body, MIB of Ireland, was subject to the direct eff ect of the Directives. This means that it is now liable to compensate victims of vehicles that are uninsured in circumstances wrongly excluded from compulsory insurance in Ireland. The MIB was set up in almost identical circumstances.

‘Hitherto it was settled law that the MIB was not an emanation of the state and thus not vicariously liable for the government’s legislative shortcomings in this way.’

Bevan continued: ‘Farrell is the most important ruling on state liability for over a quarter century. Its impact extends beyond the Motor Insurance Directives it addresses. Its effect is to extend the range of organisations that are capable of being pinned with a direct liability to compensate individuals adversely aff ected by a state’s failure to implement a Directive. It equips claimants with a new right of action grounded in EU law.’ (State liability: betwixt & between Brexit)

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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’
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
back-to-top-scroll