Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 AUGUST 2008

Determining Causation When The Competing Explanations As To How An Event Occurred Are All Uncommon, But Not Improbable

Where there are several explanations of the cause of loss, all of which are highly improbable, then the judge should not select the least improbable cause, but should decide the case on the basis that the claimant has not proved his loss.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Ian Peacock
Ian Peacock

Ide v ATB Sales Ltd: Lexus Financial Services v Russell [2008] EWCA Civ 424

The Popi M principle: Where there are several explanations of the cause of loss, all of which are highly improbable, then the judge should not select the least improbable cause, but should decide the case on the basis that the claimant has not proved his loss.

The facts: In the Ide appeal, Mr Ide fell off a mountain bike imported by ATB and was seriously injured. After the fall, the left handlebar was found to have fractured. Mr Ide's expert contended that the left handlebar had been defective and caused Mr Ide to lose control and fall. ATB's expert contended that Mr Ide had lost control, fallen off, and the handlebar had been damaged in the fall. The judge found for Mr Ide.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from