Farah v Abdullahi & Ors [2020] EWHC 825 (QB) (08 April 2020)

Farah v Abdullahi & Ors [2020] EWHC 825 (QB) (08 April 2020)

The first defendant (Ford Focus) is liable for the claimant's right tibial plateau fracture (Phase 1) and all injuries sustained in Phase 4, including the DAI, as the chain of causation was not broken by the Mercedes' actions. The Mercedes driver was negligent but did not act with intent to injure, and did not cause...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 825
Parties
Claimant: Idris Farah (by his litigation friend Fatuma Mohamad); First Defendant: Ahmed Abdullahi; Second Defendant: Probus Insurance Company Limited (Removed); Third Defendant (struck Out): EUI Limited; Fourth Defendant: Motor Insurers' Bureau; Fifth Defendant: Osman Elmi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Liability and Causation Trial (preliminary Issues)
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; liability apportioned as per findings.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Road Traffic Accidents, Causation, Apportionment of Liability, Insurance Indemnity, Untraced Drivers
Tort Law Insurance Law Personal Injury Road Traffic Accidents Causation Apportionment of Liability Insurance Indemnity Untraced Drivers

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Idris Farah (by his litigation friend Fatuma Mohamad)

Claimant

Ahmed Abdullahi

First Defendant

Probus Insurance Company Limited (Removed)

Second Defendant

EUI Limited

Third Defendant (struck Out)

Motor Insurers' Bureau

Fourth Defendant

Osman Elmi

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Liability and Causation Trial (preliminary Issues)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which defendant(s) are liable for the claimant's injuries and for which injuries?
  2. 2 Whether the chain of causation was broken between the actions of the two vehicles?
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's injuries, particularly the DAI, are divisible or non-divisible?

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant (Ford Focus) is liable for the claimant's right tibial plateau fracture (Phase 1) and all injuries sustained in Phase 4, including the DAI, as the chain of causation was not broken by the Mercedes' actions. The Mercedes driver was negligent but did not act with intent to injure, and did not cause the DAI. The DAI was sustained in Phase 4. The fourth defendant is not liable as the evidence does not establish the sixth defendant was the Mercedes driver. The claim against the third defendant was struck out as the driver was unidentified.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; liability apportioned as per findings.

Orders

  • First defendant (Ford Focus) and second defendant (insurer) liable for right tibial plateau fracture and all Phase 4 injuries including DAI.
  • Fourth defendant (Mercedes insurer) not liable as identity of driver not established.