header-logo header-logo

23 May 2019 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7841 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Phoenix in flames: lessons from Pilling (Pt 2)

In the second part of this special series on R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance Ltd, Nicholas Bevan analyses the Supreme Court’s approach to motor policy construction

In the second part of this special series, Nicholas Bevan analyses the Supreme Court’s approach to motor policy construction

The first instalment of this two-part feature on R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] UKSC 16, considered the restrictive way in which the Supreme Court discharged its duty to give effect to the wider scope of Article 3 of EC Directive 2009/103/EC on motor insurance (the Directive) when construing s 145 of Pt VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) (see Pt 1 in NLJ, 17 May 2019 p9). The court ruled that it was not possible to ‘read down’ s 145 RTA 1988 to extend its geographic scope to require compulsory third-party cover to extend to the use of vehicles on private premises.

The appeal was made in a contribution claim by a property insurer against UK Insurance Ltd (UKI)

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll