I suspended this blog last year for several reasons. The chief of which had to do with my close involvement
in what is probably the widest ranging judicial review of the UK implementation of European law in legal history. I refer to
the ongoing judicial review in R (on the application
of RoadPeace) v Secretary of State for Transport & MIB 2017 that challenges the UK's transposition of the EU Directive 2009/103/EC on motor insurance.
In mid-2015 I briefed a leading road safety charity RoadPeace
on the urgent need for reform and I introduced them to the wonderful Richard
Stein at Leigh Day solicitors. Richard
assembled a first-rate team led by Jeremy Hyam QC from 1 Crown Office Row to
challenge the UK’s failure to implement the Motor Insurance Directives so there
seemed little point in continuing to blog from the side-lines when I was providing academic advice in proceedings that raised the same challenges.
So why after over a year’s silence am I resuming this blog?
Here are some of the reasons:
1. The need to counteract the continuing uncertainty caused by the
delayed judgment in the R (on the application of RoadPeace) v Secretary of State for Transport . The case was heard over 2 days in mid
February 2017 and was largely confined to academic / black letter comparative law
matters, without the need for lay testimony or expert evidence. It is to be hoped that the Hon Mr Justice Ouseley will deliver his judgment soon.
2. The increasingly imminent prospect of Brexit and the potentially
limited shelf life of EU law rights and remedies. See my New Law Journal Article ‘Catching An
Ebbing Tide’, 9 June 2017.
3. The misinformation within the Department for Transport’s official
report into its 2016 consultation on Damijan Vnuik. The report omits any
reference to the concerns expressed by a number of informed respondents about
the government continuing failure to undertake a proper and wide-ranging review
of its national law implementation of the European Motor Insurance Directives
and / or to remedy these defects; consultation on a discrete aspect of its
failings is no answer to the need for full and proper implementation. See my
New Law Journal article ‘Car Crash Consultation’ 27 January 2017
4. The European Commission’s consultation on reforming Directive
2009/103/EC on motor insurance. Several
law firms have asked me to advise on how to respond.
5. The need to draw
attention to new European Court of Justice rulings, including Fidelidade Case C-287/16) (see my New
Law Journal Article ‘Inception Deception’ of 1 September 2017) and to a spate of references for preliminary
rulings seeking further clarification on the Motor Insurance Directives.
6. Advances in automated vehicle technology require a more
comprehensive review of UK law than is apparent from the previous government’s
flawed proposals set out in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2017.See
my New Law Journal Article ‘The Road Ahead’ 2 September 2016.
7. Lastly and by no means least, the concern that many experienced
personal injury and insurance lawyers and members of the judiciary are
still not properly acquainted with the correct EU law standard of compensatory
protection, the UK’s defective transposition of this law and an even greater
number of lawyers who appear to be unfamiliar the relevant EU law remedies.
These are some serious allegations here that I will make a start in justifying some of this in the following posts:
- THREE ERRONEOUS RULINGS
- MOTOR ACCIDENT VICTIMS DENIED JUSTICE
- IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS
- UNFAMILIARITY CAUSES INJUSTICE
No comments:
Post a Comment