fbpx

Insurer Not Liable Where Driver Unidentifiable

29th May 2019 By Arman Khosravi

In order to sue someone, they have to be served with a notice of claim unless the service of the notice can be properly dispensed with.

Can the notice of claim be properly dispensed with if the person being claimed against is not only unidentified, but unidentifiable? In a recent case, the Supreme Court decided the answer was no.

The case arose after a traffic accident which was the fault of the driver of a Nissan Micra. Another driver was injured but had failed to take the particulars of the driver who was at fault, and that person has never been traced because the car’s owner has refused to say who was driving it at the time.

The car was insured with a leading insurer, but the name on the policy was not that of the owner of the car, and is believed to be a fictitious person. The injured woman sued the owner of the car for damages, later adding the insurer to the claim.

The owner of the car was not the driver and does not have insurance for it, so the insurer denied liability. The injured woman sought to bring the claim against ‘the person unknown driving vehicle registration number Y598 SPS who collided with vehicle registration number KG03 ZJZ on 26 May 2013’.

The result was a legal battle that ended in the Supreme Court, which ruled that the woman’s only right of action was against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, a body set up to provide compensation (which is typically much less than that resulting from claims against insurers) where the vehicle is uninsured or the driver responsible is untraceable.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...