Cutting Short Your Stay: Impact Of Cameron Decision Seen

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Cameron was positively received by insurers, as it confirmed that claimants cannot bring proceedings against an unnamed driver.
United Kingdom Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Supreme Court ruling results in numerous discontinuances of claims stayed whilst decision waited

The decision of the Supreme Court in Cameron was positively received by insurers, as it confirmed that claimants cannot bring proceedings against an unnamed driver.

This judgment has been long anticipated, and had wide ranging ramifications for both claimants and insurers. Many claims were brought on the back of the Court of Appeal decision to allow claims to proceed against unnamed drivers.

Large amounts of these claims were stayed by agreement pending the Supreme Court appeal. We have seen that the final judgment has now prompted a flurry of discontinuances now it is clear that these claims have no prospects of success and are no longer viable.

Interestingly, we have seen no efforts by claimant representatives to attempt any form of settlement agreements on these claims before concluding, simply accepting the decision and closing the files without further costs being incurred.

We have also seen at least one instance where judgment was been granted against our insurer client, but enforcement was stayed by the Court pending the Supreme Court judgment. The Claimant and their representatives subsequently confirmed that they intended on redirecting the claim to the Motor Insurers Bureau.

As stated within the Cameron judgment, claimants will now be required to pursue their claim via the standard route of the UTDA. This route was specifically identified as "quicker and cheaper" for claimants.

What can we learn?

  • Insurers would be well advised to consider any claims on their system which may have been held on their system pending the decision in Cameron. If claims are identified – claims which would no longer be viable following the decision – then we would advocate issuing appropriate correspondence to claimants solicitors requesting confirmation that the claim.
  • There will be few decisions with such wide-ranging impact in the motor accident sphere than Cameron. Claimant representatives will find themselves under increasing pressures due to the whiplash

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More