Sarfraz v Akhtar & Anor [2020] EWHC 782 (QB) (06 April 2020)

Sarfraz v Akhtar & Anor [2020] EWHC 782 (QB) (06 April 2020)

It is properly arguable that the insurer's liability is not excluded under s.151(4) because the car was not unlawfully taken until it was driven off, and the claimant did not allow himself to be carried in the car within the meaning of the statute, having entered solely to prevent its being taken.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 782 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sharaz Sarfraz (a protected party suing by his brother and litigation friend Mohammed Sharbarz Sarfraz); First Defendant: Shakeeb Akhtar; Second Defendant: ERS Syndicate Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury, Insurance) / Application to Strike Out Claim or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Contingent Liability of Motor Insurers, Excluded Liability Under Road Traffic Act 1988 S.151(4), Summary Judgment Procedure, Interpretation of 'allowing Himself to Be Carried', Unlawful Taking Under Theft Act 1968
Insurance Law Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Law Contingent Liability of Motor Insurers Excluded Liability Under Road Traffic Act 1988 S.151(4) Summary Judgment Procedure Interpretation of 'allowing Himself to Be Carried' Unlawful Taking Under Theft Act 1968

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharaz Sarfraz (a protected party suing by his brother and litigation friend Mohammed Sharbarz Sarfraz)

Claimant

Shakeeb Akhtar

First Defendant

ERS Syndicate Management Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury, Insurance) / Application to Strike Out Claim or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurer's contingent liability is excluded under s.151(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the claimant 'allowed himself to be carried' in the vehicle within the meaning of s.151(4)
  3. 3 When a vehicle is considered 'unlawfully taken' for the purposes of s.151(4)

Ratio Decidendi

It is properly arguable that the insurer's liability is not excluded under s.151(4) because the car was not unlawfully taken until it was driven off, and the claimant did not allow himself to be carried in the car within the meaning of the statute, having entered solely to prevent its being taken.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The insurer's application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment is dismissed.