Dormer v Wilson & Ors [2025] EWHC 523 (KB) (07 March 2025)

Dormer v Wilson & Ors [2025] EWHC 523 (KB) (07 March 2025)

The Claimant was a pillion passenger and did not know or suspect the motorbike was stolen or unlawfully taken. The illegality defence does not bar recovery. The Second Defendant is liable as RTA insurer under s.151 RTA. The Claimant was contributorily negligent for not wearing a helmet, justifying a 40% deduction from damages. The MIB is not directly liable as the RTA insurer is liable. The Claimant's damages are not excluded by policy terms or the Uninsured Drivers Agreement.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 523 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Kyiem Dormer (a Protected Party, by his Mother and Litigation Friend Iteen Dormer); First Defendant: Jaheim Wilson; Second Defendant: Green Realisations 123 Limited; Third Defendant: Motor Insurers Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Liability Only Trial; Split Trial on Liability and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Claimant succeeds on liability; Second Defendant liable as RTA insurer; 40% deduction for contributory negligence; quantum to be determined.
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence in Tort, Road Traffic Act 1988 S.151, Motor Insurers' Bureau Liability, Contributory Negligence, EU Law Effect on Insurance Liability
Tort Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Illegality Defence in Tort Road Traffic Act 1988 S.151 Motor Insurers' Bureau Liability Contributory Negligence EU Law Effect on Insurance Liability

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kyiem Dormer (a Protected Party, by his Mother and Litigation Friend Iteen Dormer)

Claimant

Jaheim Wilson

First Defendant

Green Realisations 123 Limited

Second Defendant

Motor Insurers Bureau

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Liability Only Trial; Split Trial on Liability and Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was the rider or pillion passenger
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant knew or suspected the motorbike was stolen or unlawfully taken
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is prevented from recovering damages by the illegality defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was a pillion passenger and did not know or suspect the motorbike was stolen or unlawfully taken. The illegality defence does not bar recovery. The Second Defendant is liable as RTA insurer under s.151 RTA. The Claimant was contributorily negligent for not wearing a helmet, justifying a 40% deduction from damages. The MIB is not directly liable as the RTA insurer is liable. The Claimant's damages are not excluded by policy terms or the Uninsured Drivers Agreement.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds on liability; Second Defendant liable as RTA insurer; 40% deduction for contributory negligence; quantum to be determined.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Second Defendant is liable to satisfy any judgment for damages under s.151 RTA.
  • Claimant's damages to be reduced by 40% for contributory negligence.