Motor policy exclusion for pillion passengers: Court decision

The recent High Court decision of Dormer v Wilson, Green Realisations 123 Limited and MIB [2025] EWHC 523 required His Honour Judge Tindal to consider a number of motor related issues.

The claimant was a 16 year old who was injured as a pillion passenger, when his friend crashed a motorbike after driving through a crossroad on a red light. It became apparent after the accident that the motorbike was in fact stolen, though the claimant and his friend denied knowledge of the same. The friend rather implausibly suggested he had bought the bike from someone who he assumed was the owner, in a park for £150! The claimant suffered a leg and head injury in the accident and brought proceedings against his friend, the motor insurer of the motorbike owner and the MIB.

In his judgement HHJ Tindal was required to consider if there was an illegality defence available in tort given the use of a stolen bike, the liability of the RTA insurer where there was an exclusion in the policy for pillion passengers as well as any contributory negligence.

Despite the claimant and his friend, not being legally old enough to drive a motorbike, the Court was persuaded that there was insufficient evidence to show an illegality defence. The claimant denied knowing that the bike was stolen, suggesting he thought it was a gift to his friend from his family, maintaining that he had been brought up not to ask prying or noisy questions  and so had not asked where he had obtained the bike from. He suggested in evidence that he believed the bike to be a moped which would be legal to drive at 16 and much was made of the fact that he reported his friend’s older brother had warned them to wear a helmet if they took the bike out. This comment showed that the family knew of the bike, reinforcing his belief that it was a gift. Whilst the claimant had subsequently been convicted of drug offences post accident, and been imprisoned, there was limited evidence of such involvement prior to the accident. The Court therefore found him to be a truthful witness and as such accepted that he had subsequently been manipulated by gangs into crime, rather than being aware of the bike’s origins through prior involvement. Further as the claimant was not the party driving he did not choose to drive through the red light, causing the accident, and the Court was not convinced that there was evidence he encouraged the actual dangerous driving undertaken by his friend.

The motor insurance policy in place at the time stated “We will not pay for any damage or loss to your motorcycle or its accessories and will not make any payment in relation to the death or injury to any person for any incident occurring whilst you or any other additional riders are carrying a pillion passenger on your motorcycle. Where the Road Traffic Acts or any other legislation applicable to motor insurance oblige us to make a payment which we would not have otherwise paid, we reserve the right to recover the amount paid from you.” It was suggested by the insurer’s representatives that this restriction did not affect the number of people on the motorbike as passengers could be carried in a side car. This was not however accepted as the motorbike in question did not have a side car. The Court therefore concluded that it appeared to flatly inconsistent with s.145 (3) RTA. The case of R&S Pilling v UK Insurance [2019] previously held that where a policy term was inconsistent with s.145(3) RTA it is necessary to interpret it so as to conform if possible. The judge in this matter therefore concluded that to do so here must be to interpret the pillion exclusion to decline cover only for a payment to the policyholder driver but not to injured third parties. The court noted that the words at the end of the exclusion seemed to accept a risk of such interpretation in any event. The exclusion clearly restricted the number of persons the vehicle carried and as such was also found to be inconsistent with s.148 RTA.

Contributory negligence was allowed in the claim to reduce the value of the case. The judge considered that 15% was appropriate to reflect the failure to wear a helmet, particularly given the admitted prior warning, but this was increased to 20% to also reflect the claimant’s voluntary decision to accept a ride into the City Centre when he knew his friend had only had the bike a few days and was very inexperienced.