header-logo header-logo

16 April 2015
Issue: 7648 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Uninsured driver chaos

Expert warns of “raft” of legal challenges post-Delaney & Vnuk

The law on uninsured drivers is “in a state of shambles” and the government could face a “raft” of legal challenges.

Writing in NLJ this week, motor insurance specialist Nicholas Bevan warns that the recent case of Delaney has changed the game: “The government faces a stark dilemma: it must implement widespread reform or face a raft of expensive legal challenges from a profession that is gradually waking up to this new reality.”

In Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWCA Civ 172, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the secretary of state failed to properly implement the Second European Directive on Motor Insurance (84/5/EEC). According to Bevan, the case will force the government to rewrite both Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) agreements that deal with uninsured and untraced drivers. The government already has to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 as the result of an earlier case, Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13 .

Bevan says : “The government can no longer assert with any credibility that its national law provision complies with EU law…Delaney places the writing on the wall in terms of state liability for any incompatible exclusions and restrictions of insurer or MIB liability, back to 1996.”

Sean Delaney suffered serious injuries in a crash caused by the driver of the car in which he was a passenger. A large quantity of cannabis was found in their possession. The MIB was able to avoid liability under the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999, because the passenger knew the vehicle was being used in the furtherance of crime.

Issue: 7648 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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
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
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll