Cameron v Hussain Applied: Court Judges Unnamed Defendants By Their Cover

Farah v Abdullahi & Ors [2018] EWHC 738 (QB)

The High Court has ruled the application of Cameron v Hussain does not rest on a section 151 liability against an identified insurer. The issue to be addressed is whether a claim and potential judgment against an unnamed defendant is capable of conferring a real benefit on the claimant.

The ruling will come as a disappointment to insurers as it extends the known application of Cameron, at a time when that case is subject to an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court.

Cameron v Hussain

In a surprising decision last year, the Court of Appeal extended Insurers' liability to injured claimants under Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act to cases where the identity of the driver is unknown, irrespective of whether the policy (in respect of an identified vehicle) covered the driver. In order to avoid this liability, the insurer had to demonstrate that it was off-cover, or should never have been on-cover by seeking a declaration under section 152(2) of the Road Traffic Act avoiding the policy.

The decision in Cameron permitted a claimant to amend their claim form to substitute as Defendant an unnamed driver, identified only by reference to a specific vehicle driven at a specific time and place.

The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal the decision in Cameron and a date for the hearing is now awaited.

Farah v Abdullahi & Others

Mr Farah had suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of being hit by two identified vehicles, a Ford Focus and a Mercedes A-Class. The driver of the Mercedes could not be identified, but the vehicle was insured by EUI Limited ("EUI") at the time of the incident.

Claims were issued against the driver (Mr Abdullahi) and insurer (Probus Insurance) of the Ford Focus as First and Second Defendant.

The Third Defendant was not named, but was identified as the person who had collided with the Claimant on 6 September 2014.

Service on the Third (unnamed) Defendant was effected by serving the sealed copy of the Claim Form on the Fourth Defendant – the insurer of the car he was driving, EUI. Master Eastman allowed service of the unnamed Third Defendant's claim form on the solicitors of EUI. The MIB was named as Fifth Defendant.

In response, EUI issued an application seeking to set aside Master Eastman's order on the following basis:

EUI had avoided the policy of insurance covering the Mercedes by way of a declaration pursuant to s152(2), and was therefore off-cover. EUI argued that this...