The recent draft report from the European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) takes a very different approach to the Commission’s recommendations (made this May) for amending the scope of the Motor Insurance Directive (MID) and focuses on the use of motor vehicles in traffic.
This title was one MP’s description of the Bill’s provisions (the whiplash reforms, in the main) during yesterday’s long and highly polarised debates on report and third reading of the Bill. The Bill was passed without further amendment (save for a minor linguistic tweak by the Government) by a healthy Government majority of 56. It now passes to the Lords for approval of earlier Commons amendments after which it should receive Royal Assent, which could happen in the coming weeks and before the end of the year.
The orthodox answer to this question is no, on the basis that it is the peculiarities of the facts which give rise to the outcome, rather than any new legal approach. In two decisions this week in the tort of negligence, the clinical claim Darnley in the Supreme Court and the vicarious liability claim Bellman in the Court of Appeal, the higher Courts worked from the initial findings of fact and applied the existing law to them to drive different outcomes from those reached in the courts below.