A High Court master has ruled on issues in a road traffic insurer's claim to recover sums paid in approved settlements of fatal accident and injury claims, affecting the insurer and the two men it is pursuing.
Key facts
- Who: Motor insurers who pay out under the Road Traffic Act 1988, and drivers or vehicle owners from whom an insurer seeks recovery
- From: 16 September 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: KDP & Anor v TXL & Ors [2026] EWHC 2365 (KB)
Background
In KDP & Anor v TXL & Ors [2026] EWHC 2365 (KB), handed down on 16 September 2026, Master Stevens in the King's Bench Division of the High Court addressed various issues in a Part 20 claim. Road traffic insurers brought it to recover judgment sums paid out in approved settlements of fatal accident and personal injury claims by a family group.
The underlying claims followed a family break at the seaside in Ramsgate in summer 2022. The third party, TXL, was driving an Alfa Romeo under the influence of drugs when he mounted the pavement where family members were walking. Two people were killed and others were injured. On 8 December 2022 TXL was sentenced to 16 years in prison. He and his parents later pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice.
All but two of the original claims have been settled. The two outstanding claims are the children's, whose final prognosis is still awaited. The settlements were made on the basis of the claimants' pleaded statements of case. Those asserted that the car was owned by RXS and insured by him with UK Insurance Ltd (UKIL), and that TXL was driving with the owner's consent. TXL did not respond to the claims, and default judgment was entered against him.
A dispute between UKIL and a second insurer, Haven, over which of them should satisfy the judgments was compromised shortly before a preliminary trial listed for 4 July 2024. UKIL agreed to satisfy the judgments under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The terms were kept confidential to the two insurers. It is common ground that TXL and RXS were not told the detail of the negotiation or outcome, including each insurer's share.
The issues
UKIL issued Part 20 claims in March 2025 to recover its outlay from TXL and RXS. Both men served Part 20 Defences.
RXS's defence said TXL was driving a vehicle registered in RXS's name and insured under his policy, and that he had given his son permission to use it. In a draft amended defence he now seeks to say that he was not the owner and did not give permission. He expresses regret that his earlier defence was not "wholly truthful".
TXL, who acts in person, acknowledged in his defence that he was to blame for the collision. He has applied to amend it to add detail about the ownership, insurance and control of the vehicle, and maintains that Haven should meet the judgment debt. He also seeks to strike out UKIL's claim, which is to be considered at a future hearing.
The judgment covers:
- the standards expected of a litigant in person
- sections 151 and 152 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
- the legal tests for withdrawing admissions and for amending a defence
- the issue of abuse of process raised by UKIL, with reference to Media Trust SPA v BGB Weston Limited & Ors [2023] EWHC 1491 (KB)
What this means for people facing an insurer's recovery claim
The case shows that an insurer which has paid out on approved settlements may bring a Part 20 claim to recover those sums from those it says are responsible. It also shows that changing a defence, or withdrawing something admitted in it, is the subject of a legal test that the court applies to an application. Anyone in that position should get advice before a deadline passes and keep the documents about ownership, insurance and permission to drive.
Sources
- KDP & Anor v TXL & Ors [2026] EWHC 2365 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 16 September 2026