Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 SEPTEMBER 2023

[Case review] Looking under the bonnet at permission

This recent judgment tested the issue of whether permission was granted to another to drive the vehicle.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

This case review was co-authored by Adam Dalgleish, Trainee Solicitor, Edinburgh.

Aviva Insurance Ltd v McCoist & another [05.09.23]

A recent judgment from the Court of Session tests the issue of whether permission was granted to another to drive a vehicle subsequently involved in a collision with a pedestrian.

The Court found that the vehicle owner had not granted permission to the driver, absolving him from liability to repay insurers for the compensatory damages they had paid to the injured pedestrian.

" The Court has interpreted section 151 (8) quite narrowly meaning that insurers will require strong evidence of express permission to succeed with an argument under this clause.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from