The Supreme Court had to decide in the context of a hit and run road accident whether it was permissible to sue an unnamed defendant. Ms Bianca Cameron was injured on 26 May 2013 when another car, a Nissan Micra, collided with her car. The other driver was negligent but drove off without stopping or reporting the incident. Ms Cameron took down details of the registration number and the keeper of the vehicle, a Mr Hussain, was traced but he said he was not the driver and he refused to name the driver. The car was insured under a policy with Liverpool Victoria Insurance company. The keeper of the vehicle was convicted of failing to identify the driver.

Ms Cameron Initially sued the keeper, Mr Hussain and added the insurers LV as a defendant for a declaration that they would be liable to meet any judgment obtained against Mr Hussain. The Insurers served a defence denying liability on the grounds that there was no right to obtain a judgment against Mr Hussain because there was no evidence that he was the driver at the relevant time. Ms Cameron applied to amend her Claim Form to substitute for Mr Hussain “the person unknown driving vehicle registration Y598 SPS who collided with vehicle registration number KG03 ZJZ on 26 May 2013.” Her application was dismissed and her claim was also dismissed with summary judgment being entered for the insurer. The decision was appealed and eventually ended up at the Supreme Court in the matter of Cameron (Respondent) v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co LTD (Appellant) [2019] UKSC 6.

The Supreme Court noted that there are instances in which proceedings can be issued against persons unknown, for example representative actions have been allowed where a representative can be named but some or all of the class of individuals cannot. An example of this is actions against protesters, demonstrators and the paparazzi.

An identifiable but anonymous defendant can be served with a Claim Form, but there is an obvious difficulty in serving somebody who has not been identified. The Supreme Court decided that a person such as the driver of the Micra in this case who is not just anonymous but cannot be identified as any particular person cannot be sued under a pseudonym or description, unless the circumstances are such that the service of the claim form can be effected or properly dispensed with.

Ms Cameron did not succeed in her claim. She could not just pursue the motor insurers on the basis that there was an insurance policy in place. She still had to identify and pursue the driver.

In English law there is a statutory compensation scheme operated through the Motor Insurers Bureau to compensate victims of uninsured or untraceable vehicles, but the scheme is subject to some limitations on compensation and recovery of legal costs. The Supreme Court were not prepared to open the way for victims of unidentified drivers to be able to sue the car insurer directly.