Note that there have been challenges in a judicial review in Regina (RoadPeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport  1 W.L.R. 1293. Firstly, because the 2003 agreement does not provide for it and therefore the agreements do not act retroactively, the absence of this pre-2017 was a violation of the Union`s principle of equivalence. The High Court rejected it and said: “This is a long-standing process in which, as far as I know, there have been no complaints from the European Commission; Nor have I seen any evidence of any real problems encountered by minors or protected plaintiffs in obtaining satisfactory rewards under the UtDA, which would not have been found in a cpr right against an insured driver” (). The second complaint was that the provision did not provide protection equivalent to that provided by cpr (Civil Procedure Rules 1998/3132) Part 2.1, which provides for the requirement of a citizen in litigation and the obligation for a lawyer to write about the appropriateness of an arbitration award. This was again rejected because of the differences between the UtDA and the Cpr, for example by finding that “if one compares a claim for an unidentified driver to a right to an identified insured driver who would be subject to the Cpr, the differences are quite significant” . The Action approach to claims is a possible alternative to the much-criticized British approach.136 A particular subject, it seems, involves arbitration and the appointment of arbitrators. Therefore, the bare approach that offers the possibility of taking legal action could be a solution. While this would be costly and obsolete if legal action were more likely, the use of a mandatory conference mechanism to resolve disputes before they are brought to justice may indeed limit this. Again, the establishment of another claim mechanism would constitute a significant revision of the mib.
This could represent a higher cost potential and therefore probably unpopular with the insurance industry and motorists, as the costs are passed on to insurance premiums. This article noted that, despite concerns about mib`s approach to claims, particularly with respect to drivers leaving a trace, the courts did not find this approach illegal. DfT`s response to the consultation on the revision of the non-compliance agreement. The requirement for significant harm remains in the new agreement; However, the definition has been reduced, apparently on the basis of the physician consultation case, by anyone requiring four consecutive days of hospitalization to anyone requiring two or several nights of hospitalization or three or more outpatient care sessions. The surplus of property damage has also increased from $300 to $400. This provides that the mib is responsible for determining the cause of the accident and the damage that should have been paid if the person had been found. In addition, the mib referred to in paragraph 11, paragraph 2, has the power to determine whether or not to reduce the damage caused by the victim`s complicit negligence. While this provides an overview of how the mib works, it is nevertheless a challenge, as the Mib attempts to predict the court`s action as if the vehicle had been identified.