Eesa Mohammed v Adam Ali & Anor

Eesa Mohammed v Adam Ali & Anor

The Recorder erred in law by requiring a contested preliminary hearing to determine litigation capacity before appointing a substitute litigation friend, contrary to the guidance in Folks v Faizey. The correct approach was to appoint a litigation friend on the OPE basis unless the defendant would be prejudiced, which was not the case here. The Recorder’s decision to hold a capacity hearing was unnecessary, procedurally wrong, and increased costs. The refusal to transfer the case to the High Court was a case management decision within the Recorder’s discretion and not plainly wrong.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Eesa Mohammed; First Defendant/appellant: Adam Ali; Second Defendant/appellant: The Motor Insurers Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (road Traffic Accident) / Appeal (rolled Up Hearing: Permission and Substantive Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (procedural issue); other grounds dismissed; costs to be determined at a later hearing.
Legal Topics
Litigation Capacity, Appointment of Litigation Friend, Case Management, Transfer of Proceedings, Costs, Fundamental Dishonesty
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Mental Capacity Litigation Capacity Appointment of Litigation Friend Case Management Transfer of Proceedings Costs +1 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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eesa Mohammed

Claimant/respondent

Adam Ali

First Defendant/appellant

The Motor Insurers Bureau

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (road Traffic Accident) / Appeal (rolled Up Hearing: Permission and Substantive Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder misdirected himself in law or procedure regarding litigation capacity and the appointment of a litigation friend
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder was wrong to refuse to adjourn the case without determining capacity
  3. 3 Whether the Recorder was wrong to refuse to transfer the case to the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred in law by requiring a contested preliminary hearing to determine litigation capacity before appointing a substitute litigation friend, contrary to the guidance in Folks v Faizey. The correct approach was to appoint a litigation friend on the OPE basis unless the defendant would be prejudiced, which was not the case here. The Recorder’s decision to hold a capacity hearing was unnecessary, procedurally wrong, and increased costs. The refusal to transfer the case to the High Court was a case management decision within the Recorder’s discretion and not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (procedural issue); other grounds dismissed; costs to be determined at a later hearing.

Orders

  • Set aside the Recorder’s order requiring and conducting a preliminary capacity hearing and refusing to appoint a substitute litigation friend.
  • Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recorder’s order of 12.9.2025 set aside.