In the first of a two-part series on R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance Ltd, Nicholas Bevan considers how EU-derived domestic legislation is likely to be interpreted by the courts post-Brexit
- An analysis of the Supreme Court’s approach to the statutory construction of non-conforming domestic legislation that is intended to implement EC Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103/EC.
This is the first of a two-part commentary on the Supreme Court’s ruling in R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] UKSC 16 in which it held that a motor insurer was not liable to indemnify its assured (Mr Holden) when he accidentally burnt down his employer’s premises while attempting a welding repair to his car.
The judgment is highly significant and provides a useful insight into how EU-derived domestic legislation is likely to be interpreted by our courts under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018). It is also the second time this year where the Supreme Court has had to consider the EU law governing compulsory third party motor insurance (see NLJ,
