"Heretic" wrote in message
news:40cet8F199mbvU1@individual.net...
\>>
>> Why wouldn't it be the Compulsory Govt Insurer defending the claim?
>
> In the usual case, where the driver is properly insured, the driver's
> insurer runs the case under the name of the driver ie in this situation,
> conducts the defence.
>
> In the less usual case, where the driver is not properly insured, a
> statutory scheme involving the Nominal Defendant is triggered, and
> the Nominal Defendant conducts the defence.
>
> You can tell which kind of situation this is by the names - here,
> the defendant is the driver, not the Nominal Defendant, so it's the
> usual case.
>
> The drunk was either running the case himself, or with some financial
> help from family/friends, or the lawyers were doing it pro bono, or on
> the basis of a cut if they win/nothing if they lose (ie the ambulance
> chaser situation), or legal aid was involved (unlikely, because the
> plaintiff was clearly stupid, but that's not unusual with legal aid).
Thanks for the explanation - this is the information I was after.
|