Kyiem Dormer v Jaheim Wilson & Ors

Kyiem Dormer v Jaheim Wilson & Ors

The Claimant did not have actual or blind-eye knowledge that the Motorbike was stolen or unlawfully taken, nor that it was uninsured. He was pillion passenger, not engaged in joint enterprise dangerous driving. Policy exclusion for pillion passengers is void under s.148 RTA. Second Defendant is liable as RTA Insurer to satisfy judgment against First Defendant. Claimant's damages are reduced by 20% for contributory negligence, primarily for not wearing a helmet and riding with an inexperienced driver.

Parties
Claimant: Kyiem Dormer; 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
03 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Liability Only Judgment After Split Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant against First Defendant with 20% reduction for contributory negligence; Second Defendant liable to satisfy judgment under s.151 RTA; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence, Contributory Negligence, Motor Insurance Liability, Road Traffic Act Liability, MIB Agreement, Policy Exclusions, Helmet Use, Joint Enterprise, Strict Liability Offences
Tort Insurance Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Law Illegality Defence Contributory Negligence Motor Insurance Liability Road Traffic Act Liability +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kyiem Dormer

Claimant

Iteen Dormer

Litigation Friend

Jaheim Wilson

First Defendant

Green Realisations 123 Limited

Second Defendant

Motor Insurers Bureau

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Liability Only Judgment After Split Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was the rider or passenger of the Motorbike
  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 did not have actual or blind-eye knowledge that the Motorbike was stolen or unlawfully taken, nor that it was uninsured. He was pillion passenger, not engaged in joint enterprise dangerous driving. Policy exclusion for pillion passengers is void under s.148 RTA. Second Defendant is liable as RTA Insurer to satisfy judgment against First Defendant. Claimant's damages are reduced by 20% for contributory negligence, primarily for not wearing a helmet and riding with an inexperienced driver.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant against First Defendant with 20% reduction for contributory negligence; Second Defendant liable to satisfy judgment under s.151 RTA; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to satisfy any final judgment obtained by Claimant against First Defendant under s.151 RTA
  • Claimant's damages reduced by 20% for contributory negligence