Farah v Abdullahi & Ors

Farah v Abdullahi & Ors

The claimant's DAI and other major injuries were sustained in Phase 4 when struck by the Ford Focus, not in Phase 3. The chain of causation was broken by the first defendant's deliberate act in Phase 4, rendering prior events historic. The first defendant, and therefore the second defendant, is liable for all injuries. It was not proved on the balance of probabilities that the sixth defendant was the driver of the Mercedes.

Parties
Claimant: Idris Farah (by his litigation friend Fatuma Mohamad); First Defendant: Ahmed Abdullahi; Second Defendant: Probus Insurance Company Limited; Fourth Defendant: EUI Limited; Fifth Defendant: Motor Insurers’ Bureau; Sixth Defendant: Osman Elmi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment After Preliminary Hearing on Liability and Causation
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against the first and second defendants. The fourth defendant not liable. The sixth defendant not proved to be the Mercedes driver.
Legal Topics
Causation, Novus Actus Interveniens, Diffuse Axonal Injury, Liability Apportionment, Remoteness of Damage
Tort Personal Injury Insurance Causation Novus Actus Interveniens Diffuse Axonal Injury Liability Apportionment Remoteness of Damage

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Idris Farah (by his litigation friend Fatuma Mohamad)

Claimant

Ahmed Abdullahi

First Defendant

Probus Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

EUI Limited

Fourth Defendant

Motor Insurers’ Bureau

Fifth Defendant

Osman Elmi

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment After Preliminary Hearing on Liability and Causation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the sixth defendant the driver of the Mercedes?
  2. 2 Did the driver of the Mercedes intend to injure the claimant?
  3. 3 Was the claimant conscious between Events 3 and 4?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's DAI and other major injuries were sustained in Phase 4 when struck by the Ford Focus, not in Phase 3. The chain of causation was broken by the first defendant's deliberate act in Phase 4, rendering prior events historic. The first defendant, and therefore the second defendant, is liable for all injuries. It was not proved on the balance of probabilities that the sixth defendant was the driver of the Mercedes.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against the first and second defendants. The fourth defendant not liable. The sixth defendant not proved to be the Mercedes driver.

Orders

  • Declarations as to liability and causation to be made.
  • Further submissions invited as to relief and terms of declarations or orders.