0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

accident exchange test case

3 September 2007

The first round of the long running battle between the insurance industry and Accident Exchange has now been decided in favour of Accident Exchange, following the decision by His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC in the matter of Corbett v Gaskin.

Since mid to late 2006 some insurers have been withholding payments to the credit hire organisation arguing the contracts governing them were unenforceable.

It was the insurers case that companies providing insurance and finance were either dormant (as in the AXI/AEFL, "A" terms and conditions) or simply did not exist (as in the AEFL/AEIL "X" terms and conditions). The insurance industry argued that if the companies had no standing then they could not effectively enforce the contract against the claimant and in turn the claimant could not enforce the contract against the defendant. The Court deemed that this was not the case and that the agreements were enforceable.

The case of Gaskin involved the AXI/AEFL "A" terms, which are believed to make up the majority of the outstanding claims. The AEFL/AEIL "X" test cases remain outstanding for now, but a reserved judgment will be handed down shortly by the Leeds County Court in relation to these cases in the matter of Barker v First West Yorkshire.

The future?

Of course Gaskin is a first instance decision, and it remains to be seen whether the insurance industry wishes to appeal, (the defendant in Gaskin has not at the present time sought leave to appeal). However this decision from a Designated Civil Judge sitting in the County Court is likely to influence the outcome of the cases involving type "A" terms listed before District Judges in the County Court where the enforceability defence has been pleaded.

The parties await the first instance decision in relation to the type "X" agreements.

focus on...

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up