The court was asked: ‘i) whether it is possible to obtain a judgment in respect of a claim for damages against a defendant identified only by description (‘an unnamed defendant’), in the context of a motor claim against an unidentified hit-and-run driver, where the vehicle was identified and an insurance policy had been effected in respect of such vehicle in the name of either a non-existent person or someone who was not traceable;
ii) whether an insurer would be liable to satisfy any unsatisfied judgment against such an unnamed defendant under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’);
iii) whether the judges below were right to refuse to allow the claimant permission to amend her claim form and particulars of claim so as to substitute, for the named first defendant, a defendant identified only by the following description:
‘The person unknown driving vehicle registration number Y598 SPS who collided with vehicle registration number KG03 ZIZ on 26th May 2013.”
Gloster VP, Lloyd Jones LJJ, Sir Ross Cranston
 WLR(D) 353,  EWCA Civ 366,  PIQR P16,  1 WLR 657,  RTR 23,  Lloyd’s Rep IR 487
England and Wales
Appeal from – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Insurance
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.584251