Q&As

In light of the Supreme Court decision in Cameron v LV, what is the correct procedure where the identity of the driver is disputed? Is there any case law on the reverse onus for burdens of proof if the individual is a named policyholder? Can they rely on their own failure to register as the vehicle keeper with the DVLA as prima facie evidence they were not the actual owners?

read titleRead full title
Published on LexisPSL on 16/05/2019

The following PI & Clinical Negligence Q&A provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • In light of the Supreme Court decision in Cameron v LV, what is the correct procedure where the identity of the driver is disputed? Is there any case law on the reverse onus for burdens of proof if the individual is a named policyholder? Can they rely on their own failure to register as the vehicle keeper with the DVLA as prima facie evidence they were not the actual owners?

In light of the Supreme Court decision in Cameron v LV, what is the correct procedure where the identity of the driver is disputed? Is there any case law on the reverse onus for burdens of proof if the individual is a named policyholder? Can they rely on their own failure to register as the vehicle keeper with the DVLA as prima facie evidence they were not the actual owners?

In Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd, Ms Cameron was injured when her car collided with a Nissan Micra. The driver

Related documents:

Popular documents